1920-04-29

NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Angus McDonald, Esq., member for the electoral district of Timiskaming, introduced by Mr. J. W. Kennedy and Mr. G. W. Andrews.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. A. MAOKIE (Edmonton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 93, to amend the Marriage Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MACKIE:: The Bill is to amend chapter 105 of the Statutes of 1906. That Act read:	,
A marriage is not invalid merely because the woman Is a sister of a deceased wife of the



man, or a daughter of a sister of a deceased wife of the man.
The amendment which I seek is merely to permit that a woman shall be at liberty to marry the brother of a deceased husband. Under the Act as it stands a man may marry the sister of his deceased wife.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 85 (from the Senate), respecting the dissolution and the annulment of marriage.-Mr. Middlebro.
Bill No. 86 (from the Senate), for the relief of Bichard Ernest Anderson.-Mr. Crony n.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Is the Government aware that Customs officers in Canada estimate the customs duties according to the nominal value of foreign moneys,
i.e., the sterling pound at $4.86, the franc at 19.3, and not in accordance with the current rates of exchange?
2.	Is it the intention of the Government to modify this practice so that the rate, in future, will he charged in accordance with the current value of exchange?


Hon. Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.


SHIPMENTS OF CANADIAN FLOUR.
Mr. COPP:: 1.	What record do the canal statistics give as to the total number of barrels of Canadian flour shipped from Fort William in 1919?
2.	What were the respective quantities passed through the Canadian and the United States canals at Sault Ste. Marie?
S. What distribution was made of flour thus shipped ?
4. What was the average monthly rate per bushel and per ton between Fort William and Georgian Bay ports on water-borne Canadian wheat, oats and barley during the year 1919?


Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1.	Canadian flour shipped from Fort William and Port Arthur through the canals at Sault Ste. Marie during 1919 totalled 2,870,480 barrels.
2.	Through Canadian canal 2,473,700 barrels; through United States canal 396,780 barrels.
3.	To Georgian Bay ports, 9,537,975 barrels;
to other Canadian ports (principally Sarnia) 3,379,185 barrels.	[DOT]
IMr. Mackle.]
4.	Average monthly rate on Canadian grain shipped from Fort William and Port Arthur to Georgian Bay ports through the canals at Sault Ste. Marie during 1919: Wheat, per bushel, 3.15; per ton, $1.05; oats and barley, not available.


TREATY BETWEEN CANADA AND .FRANCE.
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Is the trade treaty between Canada and France to be repealed soon?
2.	If so, does the Government intend to conclude a new treaty to replace the old one?
Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE E. FOSTER:
1.	Yes; Notice was given on the 19th March and the treaty will therefore cease to have effect on the 19th of June this year.
2.	The Government has intonated to the French Government its willingness to confer on new trade relations.


CAMPBELLTON-GRQSS POINT FERRY.
Mr. MARCIL (Bonaventure):: 1.	Has the contract for the interprovincial ferry between Campbellton' and Cross Point, Quebec, been awarded?
2.	If so, to whom?
3.	When is the service to be inaugurated?
4.	Was the contract awarded' to the lowest tenderer?
5.	What are the names of the tenderers and what were the respective amounts of their tenders?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1, 2, 3, 4, -and 5. Contract not yet awarded. Information reiquekted will be available as soon as tenders have been finally considered and dealt with.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What is the name of each official and clerk in the Fisheries Branch at Ottawa who will be in receipt of a salary of $1,800 or over during the fiscal year 1920-21?
2.	What was the salary of each such official and clerk during the fiscal years 1916-17 1917-18, 1918-19 and 1919-20?
3.	What is the minimum and maximum salary of each such official and clerk as at present fixed by the classifying experts of the Civil Service Commission?
4.	What will the salary of each such official and clerk be during the fiscal year 1920-21?
5.	What practical experience or direct connection, if any, has each such official and clerk had in or with the fishing industry ; the nature of such experience or connection and the number of years it covers?
6.	What position did each such official and clerk, who has had no practical experience in or direct connection with the fishing industry, fill, or what duties did he perform on first becoming attached to the Fisheries Branch?
7.	What are the present duties and responsibilities of each such official or clerk?


Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: 1.	What was the total sum allowed by way of rebates on customs duties payable on raw materials imported into Canada which entered into the manufacture of war munitions?
2.	What was the total sum allowed by way of rebates on customs duties payable on raw materials imported into Canada which entered into the manufacture of foodstuffs for the benefit of the Allied armies?


U. S. RAILWAYS-FREIGHT FOR CANADA TO BE PREPAID IN U. S. CURRENCY.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J, ARCHAMBAULT: (Chambly and Vereheres): I wish to draw the attention of the Government to a very important and urgent question which has been brought to my notice in an article appearing in the Montreal Gazette of Wednesday, April 28. This article is headed:	"U. S. Railways
adopt arbitrary stand on freight rule.- Insist on prepayment of shipments in U.
S.	money regardless of haul.-Re-shipment at border made impossible by orders sent out to agents-many protests." The article goes on to state that all freight shipments to any Canadian point must be prepaid in American currency at the point of shipment clear through to destination irrespective of mileage on American or Canadian lines. It also states that any reshipment at the border will be refused. It states:
No orders for reconsignment to Canadian points will be accepted without full repayment of all charges on shipment, waybilled from point of origin, on or after May 1st.
I understand that this will mean a considerable handicap to importers from the United States to Canada, thus aggravating the high cost of living, I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to apply to the Interstate Commission to have this order rescinded or modified.
John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member drew my attention to the article last evening. I have taken the matter up with a view to ascertaining the exact situation, and if it is possible it will be remedied.


FURTHER LEGISLATION TO BE INTRODUCED THIS SESSION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (leader of the Opposition):: I understand that the Government contemplate introducing certain Bills. May I ask the leader of the 1141
Government if it is possible for him to give to the House a statement as to what further legislation the Government purposes to bring down at this session? We should be glad to have that statement at an early date so that we may know what further business to expect.


Rt. Hon. Sir GEORGE FOSTER (Acting Prime Minister):: I think I can give my hon. friend a rough idea, which will not be far short of accuracy, as to what is yet to come down in the way of legislation. There will be Bills to amend the Irrigation Act, the Immigration Act, the Bankruptcy Act, the Pharmacy Act, the Inland Revenue Act, the Post Office Act, to provide for the retirement of certain civil servants, and to amend the Railway Act. The majority of these are not very extensive or important pieces of legislation, the Post Office Act being somewhat important and maybe one or two of the others, but as a rule, they will not necessarily take up very much of the time of the House. In addition to that there may be some legislation consequent upon the report of the parliamentary committee which is at present examining the question of pensions and reconstruction. There may possibly be a Bill in amendment of the Yukon Placer Mining Act and there may be one in reference to commercial feed stuffs. That is the programme in so far as I can forecast it. A Bill with reference to commercial feed stuffs was introduced and withdrawn by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) so that it may be re-introduced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Tolmie) as being more pertinent to his department.


Mr. CASGRAIIN:: Will there be any new legislation brought in regarding the Board of Commerce in view of the decision recently rendered by the Supreme Court in the Price Brothers case?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: We will have to wait until we find what the decision of the Supreme Court is.


MR. D. B. HANNA AND CANADA STEAMSHIPS LIMITED.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
George Green Foster: A question was put yesterday to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals with reference to Mr. D. B. Hanna. I shall answer that question. Mr. Hanna was appointed a director some years ago of the Canada Steamship Lines to represent the Canadian Northern Railway on the steamship board

for the purpose of protecting the interests of the railway in connection with the interchange of traffic on the Great Lakes, and he has continued to be a member down to the present time. He has no financial interest in the steamship company and is there simply to protect the interests of the railway. Mr. Dalrymple, Vice-president of the Grand Trunk Railway system, is also a director of the steamship company, having no finanpial interest but simply looking after the interest of traffic matters in connection with the Grand Trunk in a similar capacity to that of Mr. Hanna with reference to the other railway.


INDUSTRIAL LEGISLATION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: If I understood the right hon. gentleman (Sir George Foster) aright there will be no legislation as a result of the industrial conference held last year or as a result of the work of the International Labour Conference at Washington?


George Green Foster: I do not think I stated that there would be no further legislation. _ I simply gave a forecast of the legislation as it appears probable and possible at the present time. I did not cut off all possibility of other legislation.


GENERAL AMNESTY TO POLITICAL PRISONERS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: I
would like to ask my right hon. friend the leader of the Government ('Sir George Foster) whether, with a view to healing the wounds of war, and having regard to the fact that it is eighteen months since the Armstice was signed, the Government are giving any consideration to the question of granting a general amnesty to political prisoners?


George Green Foster: I did not catch the question exactly of my hon. friend (Mr. M. Clark) but even if I had I think I would take the course of looking at his question as it appears in Hansard and give him an answer to-morrow.


DOMINION FRANCHISE ACT.
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from April 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. 12-Hon. Mr. Guthrie-respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise, Mr Boivin in the Chair.

On section 22-writs to be addressed to returning officers; and the following amendment of Hon. Mr. Fielding:
That clause 22 be amended by inserting as subclause 2 of the said clause the following words:
(2)	The returning officer shall be a person holding one of the following public offices: sheriff, registrar of deeds, chief clerk of the council of a city, incorporated town or municipality, secretary or treasurer, or secretary-treasurer, of a city, incorporated town or municipality, postmaster of a city or incorporated town, collector of customs. If none of the aforementioned officials are in the electoral district for which a returning officer is required, or if those authorized to act in such capacity are prevented from doing so, or refuse to act, or if from any cause the services of such officials are not available for the purpose, the Governor General in Council may appoint a competent person residing in the electoral district as returning officer.
Mr. BUREAU:: I desire to say a few
words in support of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) and to answer a few of the statements made in the House against it. The hon. the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) says "you ought to give me a reason why this amendment should be adopted; this is the old system which has been tried and proved effective." I beg to differ from my hon. friend; it is not the old system; it is absolutely a new system. Under the old Act we followed the municipal lists. That had been the custom in the province of Quebec but it was not followed in 1917. When the minister says that this is the old system that we are proposing to re-enact, I say "yes" and "no." You are giving the Governor in Council power to appoint registrars which he had heretofore, but the conditions are not the same. In 1917 the officers who were appointed in the province of Quebec were as a rule strangers.
Before 1917 the returning officer was obliged to accept the list prepared by the municipal authorities, and he had no power, as he will have under this Act, to appoint any one he saw fit to prepare the list. Under this Act we have absolutely no basis to work on in preparing the lists. Registration is a new system entirely and has not been tried. In reply to the argument that was made in support of this amendment that these officials had a standing in the community and were under bond, it was said that they were not under bond to this Government. I do not think there was any force in that reply. If a man holding a public office is under bond, he certainly will not do any crooked work or anything to destroy the confidence of his bondsman.

or to jeopardize the renewal of his bonds so that he may remain in office.
Another reason why these officials would make good returning officers is that they will continue ip hold their respective offices after the election is over. They have to have regard to their good name and reputation in the community. On the other hand, a man who holds office for only twenty or thirty days will not be as careful as the man who will continue to hold a public office for years to come. It is not only the question of patronage that is involved here. This is a Bill dealing with the suffrage, which I think is the greatest privilege of the subject. I have heard the Acting Prime Minister make speeches to the effect that we ought not to distrust one another, but ought to get closer together and have more confidence in one another. The Minister of Militia in introducing this Bill said that it was framed to give a fair deal to every one. Now we all know that faith in our parliamentary institutions has been pretty well shaken throughout this country. I* will not go into the merits or demerits of the question and discuss whether it is well founded or not, as there will be other opportunities later on. I am now simply stating a fact of which every one is aware. At a time like this when there is so much unrest throughout the country, we should seize this opportunity to show that we are willing to re-establish conditions as they were before, and to endeavour to restore confidence in parliamentary institutions.
Some one has remarked that this is a Bill for the whole of Canada. That is nothing new; we all know that, but we must not forget that this Bill which was made for the whole of Canada was at the same time made for every province and every part of Canada, and I say that if you wish to restore conditions in this country as closely as possible to normal you must try and get back to the conditions that existed before 1917. Heretofore in the province of Quebec-I am not speaking for the other provinces because I do not know how conditions are there; in the West they may prefer to start with no foundation for a list and may want registration-but in my province the classes of officials enumerated in the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) as well as some who are not there enumerated are the ones who have acted as returning officers. Everybody knows these men, and has confidence in them. It is not much use for the Government to say: Show us a case where an appointee of the Government has been derelict in his duty
as returning officer. We are more concerned with trying to re-establish harmony and peace in this country, and if the Government are sincere when they say they are willing to make every effort to that end, let us continue the system which existed in the different provinces prior to 1917, so that the people of this country will really see they are trying to get back to the old conditions that prevailed in this country.
I would suggest that the amendment be extended to include prothonotaries, and that the following words be added to the amendment, " when in any province these officers were formerly appointed as such registrars."
I should like to hear if there is any objection to that. Why not let us return to the old system that prevailed prior to 1917? The minister admits that this old system has proved effective, but judging by events it is not likely that the old system will be followed. In 1917, for instance, those who had been accustomed to acting as returning officers were discarded and new ones were oppointed. I cannot complain with regard to my own case because I was elected by acclamation. I have no complaint to make against the lists in my own case, but the man who was appointed returning officer for my constituency, although a good man, did not have the standing in the community that the public official had who was appointed in 1911 and who was a prothonotary of the Superior Court.
I hope that the minister will see his way clear to accept my suggestion, and have the clause amended so that the practice that prevailed in the different provinces before 1917 shall continue to prevail.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: My hon. friend dwells
upon the question of returning to the practice which prevailed before 1917. We have not departed from the old system. This section is the one which was in the Act prior to 1917. My hon. friend knows that during the whole term of the Government of which he was a member this section was in the Act.


Jacques Bureau: I know.


Hugh Guthrie: We are not changing
anything in that respect, so I think his plea that we return to the former system has no force, because we have not changed the former system, but propose to continue it. What the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) proposes is that we depart from the former system and limit the choice of the Governor in Council in making appointments to the position of returning officer to certain classes of officials. I ex-

plained my position and that of the Government on tne second reading of the Bill, and my hon. friend says that he heard my statement on that occasion. I see no reason for departing from the system that prevailed in this country prior to 1917. It was a good system and worked well, and nobody has been able to demonstrate in this House that there was any wrongdoing under it. There may have been isolated cases-I think one or two have been mentioned-but the system worked well. Then why depart from it? I can well understand that my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) would be quite content to have the returning officers in the province of Quebec appointed from a specially selected list of officials, almost all of whom would be appointees of the Government, of the province of Quebec, of which he is a supporter. So it might be in Nova Scotia; so for many years it was in Ontario under the old Liberal regime in that province. There was a time when every registrar and sheriff in Ontario with, I think, three exceptions, were appointees of the Government in power. I do not think that was a very fair system for the Conservative party of that day, but it was the system adopted by the Liberal Government then in power, and the only single case of wrong-doing by a returning officer under that system was by a sheriff. In the Dominion it never was the system. I know that in practice these officials are frequently appointed, and probably in the last election the majority of the returning officers in some of the provinces were sheriffs and registrars. Under this Bill the Government is not precluded from appointing such men, but its choice is left free and absolute. The system in the past has worked so satisfactorily that I think it might well be trusted in the future.


Ernest Lapointe: I was hoping that after a few days' Tecess my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) would be disposed to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding). He said that this Bill would be a model in fairness, and that he would be quite willing to accept suggestions from all sides of the House to make it so. This amendment is a suggestion which my hon. friend must see that we on this side of the House believe will improve the Bill.


Hugh Guthrie: I said I would be willing to accept suggestions which in the opinion of the House would improve the measure -not in the opinion of my hon. friends.


Ernest Lapointe: The opinion of my hon. friend and of most of his supporters is not a guarantee of impartiality and fairness. One reason why we desire to change the system which has prevailed in the past is that by this legislation .we are going to give wide, almost unlimited power to returning officers-powers which they did not posses under the old law. They are empowered to appoint the men who are to prepare the lists upon which members will in future be returned to this House of Commons-in a word, they are given discretionary powers of the most 'arbitrary nature; and it is for that reason we insist upon a guarantee of fairness and impartiality on the part of those men.
My hon. friends on the other side of the House say that the fact that those men are public officials is not a guarantee that they will be impartial. Well, to use an expression of my right hon. friend the leader of the House, "they will have the glare of public opinion upon them;" and as they are holding public positions of a ^responsible character, we feel we would be dealt with more fairly by those men than by men nominated by members of Parliament prior to their election.
My hon. friends opposite said the other day-all of them except the right hon. the leader of the House-that under the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's the returning officers would be the creatures of the various Provincial Governments-which at the present time are all Liberal Governments. Well, the right hon. the leader of the House himself s'aid afterwards that with the Bill as it is there would be nothing to prevent the Government appointing some of their own partisan friends.
The hon. Acting Solicitor General has just said that we in the province of Quebec would like this amendment adopted because under it we would have as returning officers men appointed by the Provincial Government, which at present is a Liberal Government. Let me tell him that in my former county of Kamouraska the returning officer for the provincial elections had to be the registrar, and he happened to be a life-long Conservative who had been appointed by the Conservative party; but he was always a good returning officer. When it came to the federal elections the returning officer had to be appointed upon the recommendation of the member, and of course I myself saw that a friend of mine was appointed every time. The registrar was a good man and gave satisfaction, al-

though I felt that it was awkward to have the provincial elections in Kamouraska conducted by a Conservative. But he always gave satisfaction, . being absolutely fair and impartial, and the system worked well. In the adjoining- county of Temis-couata in the same district the registrar is also a good Conservative, and he too has always given satisfaction; and the same remarks apply to the prothonotary of the court. All these instances go to show that my hon. friend is wrong when he says that all the men who would be appointed under the amendment would be friends of the Liberal party.
My hon. friend says that in the past no wrong has been perpetrated under the old system, but that is simply because we have not stated everything that has happened. Let me tell my hon. friend that In the county of Kamouraska which I represented until a few months ago, we had a glaring instance of wrong-doing, and if any hon. member cares to look at the Parliamentary Guide he will see that in a certain year there was no election but very serious riots occurred. This is the explanation: The returning officer took upon himself to disfranchise three of the Liberal parishes of the county. Thereupon the good people of Kamouraska took justice into their own hands and prevented any official proclamation, so there was no election.	'
Now, why not accept this amendment? It has been the policy of some of the provinces since Confederation to follow the practice proposed by the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's, those provinces having been more progressive than the Dominion in that respect. And if the example of Quebec is a bad precedent in this House, I can quote a better one. I have under my hand the British law with regard to the election of members to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. The present Bill shows that many of the sections of the British law have been adopted by my hon. friend. Why did he not adopt the section of the British law in regard to the appointment of returning officers? The section I refer to is number 28 of the Representation of the People Act, 1918, and is in this form:
The returning officer at a parliamentary election (other than a university election) shall, notwithstanding anything in any other Act, he:-
(1) In the case of a parliamentary county which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one administrative county, the sheriff;
(2)	In the case of a parliamentary borough which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, a county of a city or town having a sheriff, the sheriff, and in the case of the city of London, the sheriffs;
(3)	In the case of a parliamentary borough which is coterminous with, or wholly contained in, one municipal borough (not being a county of a city or town having a sheriff), or one metropolitan borough, or one urban district, the mayor or chairman of the council, as the case requires ; and
(4)	In any other case, such sheriff, mayor, or chairman, as may be designated for the purpose by the Local Government Board.
That same system which has been found thoroughly satisfactory in the United Kingdom we wish to have adopted in this country. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are giving unlimited powers to these returning officers, and it is essential that we have a guarantee of their fairness and impartiality.


Mr. EDWARDS:: The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) has stated that there is prevalent in this country at the present time a certain amount of distrust of our parliamentary institutions. I cannot imagine how we are going to lessen that distrust by insisting on appointing as returning officers the creatures or officials of a parliamentary institution. If the public have a distrust of parliamentary institutions it is reasonable to suppose that this distruct may be carried to officials who have been appointed by the various Provincial Governments. It would seem to be the part of wisdom to show our trust and confidence in the people by saying that they are eligible to be appointed as returning officers. The hon. member (Mr. Bureau) argued that we should again adopt the system which prevailed prior to 1917. Hon. gentlemen opposite were responsible for the appointment of returning officers in the election of 1911. The member for Shelburne and (Queen's (Mr. Fielding), a very important and prominent member of the Government of that day, and the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), also a member of that Government, had the say as to the appointment of returning officers. Now, what was the custom which prevailed in the election of 1911? There were 215 constituencies. The member for Shelburne and Queen's, (knowing the exceptional value of registrars and sheriffs when acting in the capacity of returning officers, saw to it that all the returning officers in the seventeen constituencies in Nova Scotia were sheriffs, appointees of a Liberal Government which had been in power in that

province for thirty or forty years. He saw to it that the idea which he now wishes to prevail was at that time carried out to the letter in Nova Scotia. That was a fine thing in Nova Scotia, and he wants to do the same thing in that province in future elections. But did he follow that up in other provinces? When he came to Ontario, did he see to it that all returning officers were registrars or sheriffs? Not at all; only twelve or thirteen out of the eighty-six returning officers in Ontario were sheriffs or registrars. A comparatively small number of sheriffs or registrars were appointed as returning officers in the province of Quebec. When he came to Manitoba he had not sufficient confidence in one single registrar or sheriff to appoint him returning officer. He went on to Saskatchewan, and he found none there; he went to Alberta, and he found none there. Why did the hon. gentleman not carry out his idea in 1911 throughout the whole .if Canada? Out of 215 constituencies he appointed only 50 registrars and sheriffs to act as returning officers in that election. But now a change has come over the spirit, of his. dreams; he has a lack of confidence in any person who may be appointed returning officer except under the plan which he proposes. My hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) says that there is nothing in this Bill to prevent the Government from appointing their own partisans as returning officers. Was there anything in the past to prevent the 'Government of which my lion friend (Mr. Fielding) and the leader of the Opposition were members from appointing their partisans? Did they appoint partisans? In 1908 and in 1911 they appointed in my county men who were not sheriffs or registrars, men who were good, strong supporters of the Liberal party. I have not a word of fault to find with the way that these gentlemen conducted the election. As a matter of fact, I have never heard the conduct of a returning officer appointed to act in any election in the county of Frontenac called in question. The record of the men who have been appointed as returning officers, whether they were sheriffs, registrars or persons of any other calling, is such as to justify our confidence in those who may act in the future.
The member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), having asserted that there was nothing to prevent the Government from appointing their own partisans as returning officers, proceeded to ask us to support an amendment which would force the Government to appoint partisans of hon. 
gentlemen opposite. It obliges the Government to appoint as returning officers men who have been appointed to their present offices because of their strong political leanings. Though he thinks that there is a possibility of the Government's appointing partisans under the Bill as brought down, he wants to put down in black and white a provision which will force the Government to appoint men who are partisans; to appoint sheriffs and registrars who were appointed to those offices simply because they were strong party men. Well, I do not know why hon. gentlemen opposite should show such a sudden distrust of the people generally. Registrars and sheriffs are not the only people who are competent to do this work; there are many people just as capable and just as honest as they are.
I repeat that our experience has been such as to give us confidence in the Government's appointing these returning officers. The Government have to be responsible for these officers and for the way in which they carry on their work. Let me suppose a case. A man is appointed by a certain party to the position of sheriff or registrar because he is a strong partisan, because he has worked for - that party. He is appointed returning officer, and as such he sees fit to play the party game and to conduct an election unfairly, dishonestly and dishonourably. To whom is he responsible? He snaps his fingers in the face of the Government at Ottawa. He says: I do not hold my appointment from you; I hold it from the Government of the province in which I live. They think I am all right, and I have enough friends supporting that Government to see that I retain my office, notwithstanding any misconduct on my part in connection with the election. Of course, if hon. gentlemen opposite were in power they would have control of the officials to be appointed as returning officers, and they would be all right. There is, I believe, in every province a government which is in sympathy with hon. gentlemen opposite. In some provinces they have held office for a long time, and it was only natural for them to appoint their favourites, those who were strong supporters of their party, to such positions as that of registrar and sheriff. But if you want to be fair;if you want to show that you trust the people, you cannot do it by adopting this amendment and deliberately asserting that only certain people are fit to be trusted with the carrying on of an election.
That the rest of the people are not fit to be trusted is, in plainwords, what this am-

endment means, and I object to that. In my part of the country no fault has been found with the old system of appointing men who do not hold government positions. The elections have been conducted with fairness to both parties in the past, and I believe they will be conducted with less likelihood of exhibitions of partyism than they will be if the amendment of my hon. friend is adopted.


Mr. CANNON:: It would be rather surprising to see how strenuously the amendment moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) is opposed on the Government side, if we did not consider the real meaning of the clause which is under the consideration of this committee at present. Clause 22 reads:
The Chief Electoral Officer shall address each writ of election and transmit it (by mail unless the Governor General in Council otherwise directs, in which case he shall transmit as so directed) to the person appointed by the Governor General id Council to be, and such person shall be, returning officer for the electoral district therein stated; but if such person refuses, or is unable, because of disqualification or other cause, to act, another may be appointed in his stead.
By clause 22, the Governor General in Council, or, in plain English, the Government in power at the time receives from this Parliament authority to appoint a returning officer in every electoral district in the Dominion of Canada. To know exactly what the appointment of a returning officer in each electoral district carries with it, clause 22 must be read, interpreted and considered in conjunction with other clauses of the Bill. A returning officer receives, according to this legislation, exceptionally large powers. First of all, according to clause 23, a returning officer receives the power of appointing under his hand and seal an election clerk. According to clause 25, a returning officer receives the power of appointing a deputy returning officer for each polling division in his electoral district. According to schedule A to clause 32, a returning officer has the power of appointing a registrar for each polling division in his electoral district. The word "registrar" is, I understand, used by the Government in this Bill as a means of camouflaging what the position really is. The eumerators appointed under the old law have left such a bad reputation in Canada since the election of 1917 that the Government, although they have decided to keep these people in office, have also decided to change their names or their faces, and they appear in this legislation under the more
polite term of registrar. When you read those four clauses, what is the real significance of clause 22? It is, first, that the Government have it in their power to appoint, according to the mode of election in existence at the present time in Canada, 235 officials throughout the Dominion as returning officers, one in each constituency. Secondly, these returning officers will be partisans, being appointed directly by the Government. Each returning officer, in turn, win appoint an election clerk in his electoral district, so that you have 235 more officials, 235 partisans appointed directly by the Government. That makes 470 partisans appointed by the Government at the time of an election. But this is not all. Each returning officer chooses a man in each polling division in his electoral district to act as deputy returning officer. We can safely say that there is an average of fifty polling divisions in each constituency in 'Canada, so that multiplying 235 by 50, you have roughly speaking 12,000 partisans appointed by this Government as deputy returning officers and paid for the work they do. Each returning officer is also empowered to appoint one registrar in each polling division in his electoral district, so that again multiplying 235 by an average of 50, you have another 12,000 partisans appointed by ' the Government. Thus, adding 470 and twice 12,000, you have pretty nearly 25,000 partisans appointed by the Government at the time of an election.
If you examine the law, you will find that it goes further. If there are more hungry souls about a constituency, if there are more starving stomachs around the Government candidate, according to this legislation, a returning officer may make application to the central returning officer, and the number of registrars may be doubled. Thus, instead of having one registrar in each constituency, we may have one registrar and one assistant or even two assistant registrars. Not only have we the deputy returning officers, the election clerks, the registrars, we have the constables, two constables for each polling division or 100 per electoral district, or say 23,000 jobs to give at election time. Is that fair?


Henry Arthur Mackie: When the Liberal Government was in power and you appointed these officials at that time, was that fair?


Lucien Cannon: When the great-greatgrandfather of the hon. member used to go naked, was he right or wrong?

Mr. H. A. M'AOKIE : If the hon. gentleman wishes me to reply to that, I might reply by putting the same question to him.


Lucien Cannon: And I would reply by saying that I have improved on him now that I am dressed. The question is not- What has been done in the past? The question is-What shall we do? And the argument brought forward by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) to the effect that Liberal Govefn-
4 p.m. ments in the past used to do this or do that, does not apply any more. This law introduces into this country a new electoral system, as I have proved. Before 1917, we had no registrars in our province. We did not have the system which enables a government candidate to appoint hundreds of his friends to Government jobs during an election. This is a new system, and having to consider a new system I say we should adopt new methods. The minister says, "Give us a fair suggestion and we shall accept it;" but I say, in view of the fact that this law empowers the Government to make over fifty thousand appointments throughout Canada at the time of an election, that new guarantees of fairness and new guarantees of justice ought to be given not only to this House but to the people of the country at large. And, Mr. Chairman, when we demand securities of fair play we speak in the light of bitter experience. We know how this Government made use of the privileges and powers given them by the last electoral law. For many months in the course of the year 1917 their supporters lent their aid to the perpetration of the worst political debauchery that has ever been known in the annals of this country. The people were bribed right and left; they were threatened to be put into jail; and this Government did not even have the decency to leave to the soldiers, who were fighting our battles overseas, the freedom to decide voluntarily for whom they would cast their votes. This is the sort of Government we have before us, and naturally the past record of a Government is nothing but the record of individuals. When a judge has to deal with a man who comes before him charged with a second offence he is more severe than he would be with a first offender. The Prime Minister of this country (Bight Hon. Sir Bobert Borden), has tried to hide the stains on the Canadian escutcheon. He has tried to cover up all these wounds and horrors by enshrining the record of the Gov-

ernment in the Union Jack and saying "We had to do it to win the war." But there is another case more in point to show that we cannot trust the present Government when an election is about to take place. We have the case of the Yukon Territory, where this Government, in absolute cold blood, forced their partisan to deprive an elected member of his mandate because he was not one of their supporters. In the face of all these facts, Mr. Chairman, we the Opposition, representing not only our constituencies but the whole country, have th'e right-nay, the duty-to exact from the Ministry the greatest amount of security for fairness and justice in the future.
The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) says he is not surprised that the Opposition should support the amendment, because it means that provincial appointees will get positions. I should like that hon. member, and all hon. members on the other side, to read the amendment first and discuss it afterwards. When the hon. member says that this amendment carries with it the appointment of provincial officials he gives us only half the truth. If this amendment were embodied in the law the Government could appoint officials who would hold their offices from the Federal Government, and that throughout the coun-' try. I am not saying anything new.


Mr. MOWAT:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Cannon: The Acting Prime Minister himself said the same thing in this House. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) says "Hear, hear" in answer to my statement that I am not saying anything that has not been said before. Evidently his heart is overjoyed because he sees one member doing what he always does. You have in this list, Mr. Chairman, such an enumeration as will enable the Federal Government to appoint in each constituency their own officials, who, not being ordinary partisans and not being any longer in active politics, will, I am sure, by reason of their standing in their respective communities and their long experience, give ample justice and fair play to both parties. I know what it is to have a partisan as a returning officer in a constituency. I know what the returning officer can do, and it is precisely because of that knowledge that I am anxious to have the system changed. This is the first Parliament in which I have had the honour to have a seat. I have not been connected with any legislation prior to 1917; and I do not care a rap what was done by the

Liberal Government from the year 1896 to the year 1911, nor do I care a row of pins for what Sir John Macdonald was wont to do. What I do care about is what this Government intends to do right now; and if the minister is sincere when he says that he wants to enact a piece of legislation that will command universal admiration as a model of justice and fair play, I think he will hasten to accept the amendment. That would be the surest proof he could give that his words were not a mere empty bid for popularity.


Mr. MORPHY:: There has been a great deal of discussion oveT this matter, but there does not seem to have been much enlightenment as to the real object of those who oppose the section. Apparently there is a difference of opinion on the other side in connection with the amendment. The hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding), when he spoke the other evening on the subject, said, if I do not misquote him, that wre all should be partisans. If I am wrong, I trust the hon. gentleman will correct me, but I understood him to say that every man of sense should be a partisan. Well, I would refer the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) to that remark of his hon. friend and would suggest that he square himself with the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. One hon. gentleman on the other side says that every man should be a partisan, while the other rails vehemently and with much eloquence against partisanship. Section 22 is an ordinary section that should not engender any animosity, unless hon. gentlemen opposite can show that in the past there have been such gross irregularities as to warrant a radical departure in the conduct of elections. The elections in the past have been carried on in such a manner as to reflect credit on Canada, and it has been shown in this debate that only one real crime has been brought home to any particular returning officer, and that was in West Elgin, where the official was appointed by the Provincial Government. This seems to be a mere tempest in a tea pot. The hon. member for Dorchester who rails against partisanship is pleading for an amendment that is purely partisan in its nature. Let me ask the hon. member to review the amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's. In that amendment what do we find? It pleads for the appointment of customs collectors and postmasters. If there is such a thing as partisanship, I presume it would be found in the ranks of those who have accepted offices of emolument from this Gov- J ernment in the shape of postmasterships and customs collectorships. How vain is is for the hon. gentleman to rail against an Act that tries to get clear of the very thing that he declaims against-partisanship. Does he want to select a customs officer or a postmaster who was appointed by the old Conservative Administration? Nothing of the kind. It is a tempest in a tea pot raised for the purpose of pretending that there is a desire on the part of this Government to be unfair. The hon. member for Dorchester puts up the 12,000 returning officers,
12,000	election clerks and 12,000 constables throughout Canada. These are all administrative officers and they have always been so in connection with the election machinery of this country. 'There is nothing new about it. He thought they ought to be appointed from amongst customs collectors and postmasters who are specially designated in the amendment as persons proper to be selected by this Government.
There seems to be nothing more puerile than such an argument. If on the other hand this Government were to bring in a regulation or a law saying that customs officers and postmasters must be selected to fill the position of registrar and to operate and administer the Election Act, I can imagine hon. gentlemen opposite (rising en masse and protesting that the Government wanted to appoint creatures of its own to be returning officers-postmasters and customs collectors lately appointed by itself. What a. furore would be raised, what a mass of indignation, and yet perchance because the spirit of opposition prevails without a good basis, without showing any wrong-doing in the past but for the sake of talk, the hon. member for Dorchester gets up and fulminates against the practice of the past which has not been shown to be anything that could have been used as partisan propaganda. To the eternal credit1 of Canada the elections to the Federal Parliament in the past have been conducted by men of high standing, probity and honour acting on behalf of both parties. There is nothing partisan in my argument. We are entitled to take credit for the high standing of those who have conducted our elections in the past. Nothing has been shown to justify any particular change in so far as the principle is concerned.
I did not like the reference of the hon. gentlemen in which he sought to defame the Prime Minister. With reference to the

introduction of this subject by the hon. gentleman, I am sure that if the Prime Minister were present he would have treated the hon. gentleman's remarks as mere persiflage and with that contempt which they deserve.
Mr. (CANNON:	He would have been
wrong.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The attitude of the
Prime Minister to which the hon. gentleman made reference in putting himself under the folds of the Union Jack was one that should commend itself to the hon. member for Dorchester. I am not ^o sure but that he put himself equally under the folds of the Union Jack in the greatest crisis in the history of this country.


Lucien Cannon: I like the Union Jack
too but not when it covers garbage like that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not know that it is any worse to use the Union Jack to cover garbage than it is to have the hon. gentleman use it foT every foul purpose of propagating smut. When we consider the fact that at the present time, having regard to the history of those who have conducted elections and the unimpeached integrity, honour and good administration of the officers of the past, I would like the hon. gentleman to show something to warrant the discarding of the principle involved in the system that has worked so well in days gone by. There has not been a vestige of argument that has shown anything that would warrant this Government in changing the principles as they have been in the past except as it may be necessary to change them in accordance with the institution of a new measure of federal franchise for which, as has been argued, the Government is responsible, and must accept responsibility. The amendment of the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's not only takes away from the Government its responsibility but compels it to delegate it to others. The amendment would compel the Government to make appointments from classes that are said to be partisan and can fairly be said to be partisan and would take away from the Government the responsibility which is theirs as an administrative body.
There is one further matter to which I wish to refer and that is that there is nothing in section 22 that would prevent the appointment of any one of the classes mentioned in the amendment. If no other suitable man can be found, a customs offi-
[Mr. Morphy. 1
cer or a postmaster may be selected. I think it would be a most unhappy selection. If for no other Teason than that it compels the Government to appoint from these classes, I think the amendment should be defeated.


Michael Clark: I sympathize very
largely with the thought which seemed to underlie the speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy) who has just resumed his seat in so far as that thought embodied the idea that we were wasting far more time over this amendment than it is worth or than the country will think it is worth. On personal grounds I would have a strong disposition to support any amendment coming from the pen of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding), and I say that very sincerely, but I have read his amendment with the greatest care and I do think that the time we are spending on it is time that is very badly needed for work that we would get to sooner if we let the clause pass as it stands. The avowed object of getting rid of partisanship in elections commends itself most heartily to myself. If the thing could be done, if you could have automatic machinery whereby people who have no party leanings, conducted the elections I would support at once any amendment that showed that it could carry out that principle. It would be most desirable. I want to say, however, that in this little corner of the House we do not have the fear of partisanship that seems to animate the other two section in this Chamber.
In the first place I am one of those who believe that if a candidate has any bigness to him, and if his programme has any bigness to it and is a sincere programme, he will win in nineteen cases out of twenty against a considerable handicap, and there never was a period in the history of this country when that was so true as at the present moment, because there never was a period in the history of this country when the people from Halifax to Vancouver were giving such serious attention to -big political questions. I repeat, that the fear of partisanship is not so great here as it seems to be in other quarters. Partisans in the old sense are not so numerous as they used to be in Canada. I was very proud and pleased to see the stalwart representative of Labour (Mr. Angus McDonald) take his seat in this Chamber today. Whether I could have supported all his programme in the election I do not know; I was not there; I got my information about what was happening and what was going to happen second-hand. But I do

know this, that he stood for something, that the people knew what he stood lor, and they supported him in such a way as to make partisans in the sense in which the word is being used in this' House look pretty small at the finish. From the correlation of information I made, perhaps 1 won't be considered egotistical if I tell the committee that I was able to place the candidates on the poll some days before polling day just as they came out. Now for the consolation of my hon. friends of the official Opposition I want to tell them that even they could stand a slight handicap in the shape of a little partisanship against the candidates of the present Government, unless public opinion changes be-for the next election, because in that recent by-election in Temiskaming the Unionist or Conservative candidate, or whatever he was, was at the bottom of the poll,-94 votes behind the candidate of the official Opposition, according to the last figures. The Labour winner , was 2,100 in front of the very poor second, so I repeat, that where men have a cause in which they believe, they need not be so afraid of partisanship.
But that does not prevent or excuse one from discussing the question on its merits.
I do not know how you are going to get rid of partisans by this amendment. I do not know how you are going to get rid of partisans at all unless you choose all your returning officers from the ranks of the Progressives, who are absolutely independent of politics. That is the only way you could get rid of partisans. This amendment does not get rid of partisans; it only varies the partisanship. But the strictest terms of definition, as my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) in the speech in which he supported his amendment, with candour and fairness pointed out, you are compelled to choose partisans, only you would choose them in some cases from partisans of the Dominion Government, and in other eases from partisans of local governments. You would put a leverage into the hands of local governments in a Dominion fight. It would not be quite a square game for the 'man who likes to stand up and fight out a fight fairly. You would put a leverage in some cases into the hands of provincial officials, and in others, into the hands of Dominion officials of one of the old stripes. For the life of me I cannot see that this amendment is worth the time that is being expended on it, and I apologize to the committee for the time I, myself, have taken. I have made the remarks I have, however, in the hope that no further time will be spent in trying to define
the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the great mass of the citizens of this country are thinking about something far more serious than that.
I want to say one word more. I endorse from my own observation and experience in Western Canada what has been put so moderately and fairly, nevertheless so emphatically, by my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) and my hon._ friend (Mr. Morphy), that on the whole elections, so far as returning officers are concerned, have been pretty square. I have fought several of them in Western Canada, and I have never had anything to complain of. So far as I have ever had a word to say in the appointment oif a returning officer, I am perfectly sure that I have pursued a course which would commend itself, and which has been participated in by most of the members of this House on whatsoever side or in whatsoever corner they sit. I have tried to get a decent kind of fellow with good capacity, and I am bound to say that one has generally succeeded. I have never seen any crookedness, and I am glad to confirm what my hon. friends opposite have said in that respect. I am bound to add, that if I wanted to say anything offensive-but it will bnly prolong the debate, so perhaps I should not-still I do feel bound to add that the talk of crookedness, when it is pushed too far, almost makes one fear that it prevails mainly in the quarters where the fear seems to prevail the most. I hope that is not so. I have told the committee the reasons why I do not see anything in the amendment. I think we are wasting time in discussing it, and if it is going to a vote I shall vote against it.


Mr. LBMIEUX:: I do not think that we are losing time in discussing this very important section, Mr. Chairman. My hon friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) is a profound student of history and a strong admirer of the system of government which prevails in the Old Country. So am I, Mr. Chairman. If there is one thing I admire in these days it is the perfection of responsible government as it is exemplified in the government of the Mother Country. How has that perfection been brought about? It was revealed in two words by my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) a moment ago. Let me recall to my hon. friend from Red Deer that if in Great Britain to-day nobody questions the results of elections, if not one protest is lodged in ten years, it is because the machinery by which responsible

government is carried on there is absolutely pure and above suspicion.


Mr. MICHAEL  OLAKK@: May I interrupt my hon. friend? I know exactly how elections are conducted in Great Britain. I had it in mind, but I wanted to make a brief speech, to refer to that matter. If my hon. friend can show me where I am wrong in what I am about to say he may change my intentions, because I am not a Mede or a Persian. There is a great difference between an old country where you have settled machinery coming down through the centuries and this country where, especially in Western Canada, you have not this settled machinery; and that there are so many different choices of appointees mentioned in the amendment proves the difference.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is not the point at all. I was attempting to show to the committee that we should try to have in this new country the system which has been brought to perfection through the ages in Great Britain. In these matters- and my hon. friend will not disclaim this- we should look to Great Britain as the Mother of Parliaments and the Leader of Nations. Well, Sir, although I am not British-born, I consider that the best electoral system in the world holds sway in Great Britain to-day. What are we attempting to do at the present time? We are trying to revert to the conditions which prevailed in the days of the Westminster election, when Charles James Fox was passing through the constituency of Westminster-and his opponent was doing likewise-buying votes right and left; when there were rotten boroughs in England, and Government creatures running elections and electing members to Parliament much to the disgrace of the British elector. But Great Britain has passed beyond that stage, and slowly but surely under statesmen like Grey, Gladstone and Beaconsfield the country has perfected electoral machinery which is above suspicion.
It seems to me that the officers who hold in their power the electoral machinery of this country should be like the Goddess Justice of olden times-blindfolded.	We
are not progressing; we are reverting to the old conditions. My hon. friend says: "But we will always elect a candidate if he has a good cause, if the flag he carries is a clean flag." Let me recall to my hon. friend that one of my earliest recollections in this House

not as a member but as

an onlooker in the old Chamber when I was a student at the Ottawa University- was a case which struck my imagination: during a whole week a returning officer from King's county, New Brunswick, was before tire Bar of the House. Why, Sir? Because he as a partisan returning officer had elected the man-who represented the good cause? Oh, no. He had elected the man who polled the minority of the votes. I refer to the Baird case. I also remember another case, and I think it arose out of the election of 1891. The member for the county of Chicoutimi-the respected brother of my hon. friend who now represents that constituency-had been elected by the majority of the electors, but the returning officer took upon himself to- declare elected the gentleman who had the votes of the minority. Here are two cases in my recollection where a returning officer, because he was a partisan, did not declare elected the man "who represented the cause, who carried the flag;" he declared elected the man who suited the purposes of the Government of the day. We wish to avoid that wrongdoing. I do not say that the Liberals are purer than the Conservatives, or that the Conservatives are purer than the Liberals. If it were feasible I would suggest that our returning officers should be our judiciary, but they are too busy to undertake the work. Therefore I say: Let us take the sheriffs as they do in Great Britain, let us take the registrars of deeds, let us take the customs officers appointed by both parties, for every one knows that once a man is appointed to a position of trust he does not care much for the "party." That has been my experience, and I have been in this House for nearly twenty-five years. When a man is appointed to a position of trust it leaves on him some impress of responsibility, and thenceforward he becomes fair to both parties; he realizes his trusteeship and is faithful in discharging his duties. Now, would it not be better in order to give the public not only the impression but the conviction that our election officers are above board and will act as judges between the two political parties, to take men who by virtue of their trusteeship would see to it that the public get fair play. On this score I say to my hon. friend from Bed Deer that I think I am more of a Britisher than he is himself. I wish to imitate the methods followed in Great Britain methods which have made the elections there an exemplar to all other countries enjoying responsible government.

There is another clause dealing with the preparation of the voters' lists, and in that connection the- powers of the returning officers are, as .my horn, friend from Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) said -a moment ago, very wide. I do not complain personally of the appointment of enumerators at the last election, but, Sir, I .say that the appointment of enumerators will become a source of scandal at the next election. Human nature is human nature, and if the returning officer appoints thousands of partisan enumerators to have charge of the placing of the names on the lists, why, Sir, your next election will 'become a by-word among the lovers of free and responsible institutions. Let us select proper instruments for the carrying out of our electoral laws. Let us not leave in the hands of the Government, whatever government it may be, the selection of returning officers. Let ' that be done automatically, as it is done in England. I am surprised indeed to find my hoar, friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) discarding the British system and standing by the Western American system, under which for years and years elections were only an expression, not a reality. Let us have in Canada not only the name, but the spirit of British institutions.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) has just been in Europe, and we watched his journey there with the utmo"t sympathy and personal regard. I have learned indirectly since he came home that when he visited the British House of Commons he (was very much impressed with the extreme brevity of the speeches of Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Asquith. I venture to express the hope that the example of 'these gentlemen will not be lost on him and that his imitation of that example will affect this whole 'Chamber. I have nothing to complain of along that line on the present occasion, and I myself shall try to emulate the example
Now, I want to ask my hon. friend how he is going to help his cause toy using language which I venture to call that of the very grossest exaggeration? What is the use of saying that we are reverting to the condition of the rotten borough? What was a rotten borough? The term ''rotten borough" had nothing to do with the way elections were conducted; my hon. friend knows that .quite well. The best type of rotten borough toefore the first Reform Bill, was that of Old Sarum, which returned two members with five voters, under the dictation of .a duke. Does my hon. friend pretend that in this harmless clause 22 we
are creating doub 1 e-membered constituencies in Canada-rotten boroughs, he calls them-where five electors are to .return two members under the dictation of a duke? There are no dukes in Canada; my hon. friend has abolished all titles. I would respectfully point out to my hon. friend that in Great Britain not only are the statesmen brief in their speeches, but 'they do not exaggerate. We cannot have the election machinery of Great Britain. In a county in Great Britain, as in .a borough, the sheriff in every case conducts the election.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Michael Clark: "Hear, hear" my hon. friend says. Who appoints the sheriffs? Are they appointed by a Federal Government? My hon. friend does not know, perhaps. Are they appointed by a Provincial Government? No, they are appointed by the Lord Lieutenants of the counties, who in nine cases out of ten .are men away .above suspicion; are literally sub-governors under the Crown, and as free from suspicion as members of the Royal Family would be.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They are appointed by the local authority, are they not?


Michael Clark: They are appointed as I have stated.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By the local authority.


Michael Clark: In the case of the provinces, I repeat what I said when I was on my feet before-and my hon. friend cannot circumvent or controvert what I say, if he takes until midnight; in nominating as returning officers sheriffs appointed by the Provincial Governments, you would .in nine cases out of ten be .appointing local partisans instead of federal partisans. That is the answer to my hon. friend, and he cannot controvert it. He says that he would appoint judges as returning officers if he had the power, but they are too busy. Are we to infer that the postmasters of Canada have no work to do? I should say that on the whole the postmasters are vastly more constantly busy than the judges are. If they are not, they should be by having their staffs cut down and some necessary economies effected in the .conduct of the business of the country. But I assume that our postmasters for the most part are busy men. Yet my hon. friend says .that he would take postmasters where he could not get sheriffs; he would take registrars where he could not get postmasters or Sheriffs; he would take customs officers, I suppose, where he oould

not get any of those-the Lord knows what he would not take, except some one appointed in a reasonable, decent way by the Government in power at the time, That is a sufficient answer, so far as I can see, to .all that my hon. friend advances. If we could have the machinery of Great Britain, I would be entirely with smy hon. friend, but owing to our federal system of government and to the comparatively unsettled and primitive condition of our outlying districts, it is impossible to have it. I know that my hon. friend's experience in elections is greater than mine; of course, he has been longer in Canada. But I want to repeat, for the sake of the good repute of all classes of politicians in Western Canada, that we do not have that sort of thing out there. I am sorry that it prevails where my hon. friend is,


Mr. DENIS:: My hon. friend (Mr. M. Clark) has just pointed out the necessity of making progress, and has attributed to this side of the House the responsibility for dragging .the discussion. But those who are responsible for dragging the discussion on this clause .are not those who ask for fair play and for justice, but those who refuse fair play and refuse justice. Hon. members on the other side have tried to show that no fraud or misdemeanour would result through the nomination by the Government of returning officers. I submit that the principal question does not lie there. In certain instances returning officers might do gross injustice or might commit crimes; hut such .are not the cases which should be had in mind in an examination of the merits of this clause. The nomination of the returning officer brings with it, as a consequence, the nomination of about 400 persons in each constituency, and I am now going to give the figures. According to this electoral law which gives the franchise to both men and women, the polling divisions in each constituency will, as a rule, be at least 75 in number. Consequently, we have 75 deputy returning officers nominated by the returning officer; we have 75 registrars, nominated by the returning officer; and in each poll, we have a clerk who is nominated by the returning officer or the deputy returning officer, under the control of the returning officer. These three classes of officers make a total of 225 for each constituency. But this is not all. Each returning officer may, at his discretion, appoint two constables for each poll, if he wants to do so; and if he appoints two constables for each poll, that 
will mean the appointment of 150 more officials for each constituency. Adding the 150 constables to the 225 other officials whom I have already mentioned, we have a total of 375. Yet, this is not all. Each returning officer will have the right to choose 75 houses in which the polls will be held. This is patronage again. If we count the proprietors of these houses, together with the other officials whom I have mentioned, the total number in each constituency will be 450. These are only approximate figures, but they cannot be seriously contradicted. The patronage in each constituency will, therefore, represent about 450 nominations, and as there are 235 constituencies in Canada, if you multiply 450 by 235, you get a total of 105,750. Thus clause 22 provides for the nomination of returning officers who control the nomination of over 100,000 employees during an election. What does this mean? The appointment of so large a number of officials by the returning officer means an unavoidable temptation to use this force as a political machine. It is impossible in practice to escape, and we cannot imagine that any party will escape, the temptation of endeavouring to use this political machine more or less directly.
In order to make our case good, it is not necessary for us to prove that political buccaneering will result from the nomination of returning officers by the Government. To make our case good, it is sufficient to prove that the general control of an election will be in the hands of officials of the Government, and that I have done. Consequently, I support the amendment moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding), and if any hon. member opposite wants to make progress, which I am anxious to see made, I would ask him if it is not true that, through the instrumentality of the nomination of these returning officers, the Government in power will be enabled to choose from three to five hundred officials for each constituency during an election. If this statement is not true, I should like to be told so; if it is accurate, then we must come to the conclusion that clause 22 places in the hands of the Government a very dangerous piece of machinery in election times,


Mr. DEVLIN:: I want to make this suggestion to the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie). In view of the fact that there is such a divergence of opinion in the House relative to this clause, and that we have several other clauses yet to deal with, would it not be a proper thing to put off this clause until the leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) returns? I, for

one, would like to hear the opinion of the Prime Minister upon this clause, as it is one that will have to do with the machinery of politics for many years to come. Some hon. gentlemen assume that it is going to help the Unionist Government 5 p.m. during the coming election. My personal view of the matter is that there will be very few left of the Unionist Government when the nest election comes on, and what is left of it will not be worth saving even through any electoral machinery. There is a great deal to be said in favour of this clause, but there is -also a great deal to be said against it. My hon. friend has said that for years it was in operation in Canada. For years it gave satisfaction and yet there were abuses, and the only idea which hon. members, on this side of the House have is that they want to get as good a law as it is possible to have to insure a free expression of public opinion in this country. The hon. member for Maisonneuve and Gaspe (Mr. Lemieux) has said that he would like to see the judges act as returning officers in this country. I do not want to speak depreciatively of any political party or of any class of men in Canada, but if the thing were possible, I certainly would like to see judges appointed as returning officers. I assume, however, that judges could not be called off 'the bench and sent roaming around as returning officers. The idea that we have of the returning officer is that he must be a man who knows something about the electoral law, and that requires study, careful examination and ready decision. With all due respect to men taken here and there and appointed to act as returning officers, I feel sure they cannot be in the same position to grasp the question as men who are accustomed to that class of work, and they cannot be expected to give the same ready decision as men who have had something in the nature of legal training, even though that legal training he not one that leads them on to the practice of the profession. I am not in favour of class legislation; but in this instance I am in favour of getting the best possible men in the community, and I have no hesitation in saying that the men who are living in the community, who are dependent upon the good-will of the community, who are dependent upon their respectability for reappointment and continuation in office, should be the men chosen in this instance. Therefore, I have much pleasure in supporting the amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding).
Amendment (Mr. Fielding) negatived. Yeas, 49; nays, 81.


The CHAIRMAN:: I declare the amendment lost. The question is on the main motion.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Mr. Chairman-


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, an hon. member, desires to speak.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I feel that we are only beginning now to discuss the section, and I was rather surprised that the Chairman failed to observe me. That, however, was quite excusable in view of the clamorous enthusiasm on the other side. I was surprised at the defeat of }he amendment, Mr. Chairman, because it seemed to me that we had made out such a good case that hon. members, in spite of their arguments to the contrary, would support it. Now that the amendment has been defeated we must deal with the section itself. It is not my intention to go over what has been said before, but before we go very much further I should like to have an assurance from the minister that the unreasonable provisions of this clause will be tempered with some degree of fair play. I suppose after all it is natural to expect that hon. members should reject the amendment that has been moved on this side; but as we have always declared, we are open to conviction, and we are quite prepared to consider any reasonable suggestions which may come from the other side. That the section as it stands should be changed seems to me to be a matter that admits o! no dispute, although hon. gentlemen opposite are solidly in favour of it. I ishould prefer to have some other authority than the Government chosen to appoint returning officers, and I would suggest, as k possibility, the Civil Service Commission.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I know very well that this suggestion is not very popular, but as a tentative proposal that may lead to better suggestions, I think it is at least worth some consideration. For my part, I must confess that I would rather have the appointment of the officials made by an independent body, whatever it may be, instead of the Government, and there are strong reasons for this preference. By way of a start, therefore, I would suggest to the minister the Civil Service Commission.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Hon. members are apparently amused, but as I have said, I do not submit this suggestion as the embodiment of wisdom and perfection. It is necessary



that we should propose something, seeing that hon. members opposite will not. We have to say something- t


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friends on the other side laugh. Well, Mr. Chairman, they have only one argument after all: they can laugh or say "No." They want to have the clause stand as it is because they know very well that it will give them control of about four hundred officials in every constituency in the next election. Is that fair; is it right; does it exemplify the minister's professed desire to give us an" impartial Act? Hon. members opposite have shown us no substantial reason why this clause should stand as it is.


Ernest Lapointe: They have no reasons to offer.


Jean-Joseph Denis: They certainly have not. Now ,Mr. Chairman, may I once again suggest to the minister that he might consider the proposal I have made in regard to the Civil Service Commission? I make this proposal simply as one way at least of avoiding the unjust situation that will exist if the clause goes through as it now stands. I do not think that the Government should press such a section by sheer weight of numbers. Before it passes they and their supporters owe it to the members of this House and to the people to give some satisfactory reason why this section should be adopted. I do not believe that the section would meet with a consensus of approval outside of this House; indeed, I believe that the majority of people would be opposed to it.


Lucien Cannon: The Union Government,
since it came to. life in 1917, have told the House and the country many a time that their chief aim and object was (to abolish patronage. They created a commission called the Civil Service Commission with the sole object of taking away from the Government supporters and ministers the appointment of civil employees. Why so? Because of the fact, which has been admitted by the Government themselves and by their supporters, that they were not fit to make appointments, and they were not fit to make appointments because they were biased. I remember listening some time ago to a very interesting speech by the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), who said the Government had appointed the Civil Service Commission because the appointments which had been made previously were not as good as they might' have been.
	j
If the Government- are sincere in their policy concerning the Civil Service, if, for instance, it is impossible for the Government to-day to make the appointment of ' an ordinary clerk, washerwoman, porter, or the most minor employee in the service, how, is it, following the same line of logic and the same direction of reasoning, that the Government wish to appoint the officials whose functions are the most momentous in Canada? It is easy for the -Government supporters to come into this House as they did this afternoon and say: "Vote" and "Question," but we on this side of the House-and when I say "we on this side of the House" I exclude the gentlemen who are occupying the last seats on this side- want to have some more information and some better reasons. We want to know the reasons why -the -Government to-day are reestablishing the patronage which was abolished three years ago by the same Government. Some people in this country say that it was never sincere -when it -contended that patronage was abolished, tha-t patronage was only abolished for the -small jobs, but maintained for the big ones. I find quite a lot in this contention, and if the impression which prevails amongst the public is to disappear, and if -this Government wishes to convince 'the people that- patronage is really abolished, let it change the clause and let it not stand the way as it stands now. When the people will have to choose the next House o-f -Commons, -when they wall be called upon to choose their representatives, are we, the representatives of the people at the present time, to aljow the Government to fix the machinery in such a -way that it would be impossible to have an electoral machine which would work properly?
I wish to call your atention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the most radical member of the House took his seat this afternoon. This is the gentleman who went throughout the constituency of Temiska-ming, claiming that the rights of the people should be respected, claiming that constitutional government should prevail, that Orders in Council should cease and that the extravagant powers exercised- by the Governor in Council should not be exercised any longer. That was his platform, that was his programme and that was the gist of his speeches if I understood the report that I read properly. We, the Liberals, sitting on your left, Mr. Chairman, were tdo much like the Government -supporters in this House and the people should send representatives to fight -the -Govern-

ment. This gentleman was elected to this House on that platform and Ms first vote is cast to support the Government.


Mr. COWAN:: He found we were right after all.


Lucien Cannon: It may have been because his first afternoon has been spent with the hon. member. If we wish to weigh this clause on its merits we have to go back to the history of other countries. I do not wish, like other members 'of the House, to bring before you facts that any child in a school can read out of a book and can quote as if they were new. I do not wish to talk about Old Sarum; that is the "Sarum" with which I was innoculated when I was about seven years old. I will speak about something more important than the old Sarum that Macaulay told us about and that every school boy knows about. Let us speak of something more important; let us speak of what happened in France at the time of the revolution. The Constituent Assembly was discussing how the people should elect their representatives and how the liberties of the people should be preserved and maintained at election time. There were then, as there are in this House, three parties in the Constituent Assembly., First, there was the old Tory party of France, which was attached, as much as the hon. member ifor Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) may be, to the established church of France and to the ancient throne of the French kings. That party may be wrong in most cases, but it is honestly wrong. Secondly, there was the party of those people who believed in popular, constitutional and representative institutions. These people believed that members should be chosen to represent the people and that the machinery to be established for the election of representatives should be such that nobody could touch it who was in any way biased or partisan. There is -a third party. There is a party of those too good to belong to either of the other two. The third party in those days was called what the third party in this House will come to be called if it keeps on-" The Know-It-Alls." They were not satisfied with the plan submitted by either the Tories or the Liberals. They wanted a plan of their own. We have the same situation in this House. I do not say, Mr. Chairman, that the old Tory members from Ontario are wrong when they fight strenuously to maintain this clause in the electoral law. The Tory party has always taken its strength, not in the masses, but 115J
in the classes, and naturally the classes represent less people than the masses. The Tory party, therefore, has always been in favour of a restricted franchise and electoral machinery so that they could run the election themselves. The history of the Tory party in England is there to prove my contention, and the history of the Tory party in Canada is there to support it. In Canada, in the province of Quebec, we have had the days of the family compact, and I know from personal history of my own family how the thing used to work. My great grandfather belonged to the family compact in Quebec and sat in the House at that time, elected by a small number of voters in a very large constituency, and elected mostly by reason of the help that, the Government employees gave him.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Is that the gentleman that did not wear clothes?


Lucien Cannon: I can tell my hon. friend this:	He was a Government supporter,
and my hon. friend knows from his own experience that every Government supporter can afford to wear clothes. We have had examples in this country in the past, I was saying, that explains the attitude of our Tory friends on the other side, but how are we to explain the attitude of our Liberal friends opposite, if there are such people as former Liberals or Liberal-Unionists on your right, Mr. Chairman? Do these gentlemen wish to introduce in Canada the regime we had when government employees used to control elections? If they do, they have only got to keep on voting the way they are voting now. We will have in this country at election time over 50,000 appointees of the Government. My hon. friend (Mr. Denis) tells me my estimate is too low, that there will be at least 100,000. Government supporters say it is all right. Do they cherish the illusion that they can repeat their old trick of 1917?
Mr. CAiSGRAIN:	That's what they
want.


Lucien Cannon: Then they will find they are making a mistake. If this clause has been included in the Bill to elect once more hon. gentlemen sitting to your right, Mr. Chairman, no matter how drastic or how unjust it may be I say it is not drastic or unjust enough to do the trick. So why not have a fair franchise? If they cannot repeat what was done in 1917, why not let the people vote fairly and freely at the next election, so that we may have in this

House members who do represent their constituencies?
I heard an hon. member say this afternoon that in Western Canada everything was square, that never in Western Canada had the electoral law been used for evil purposes. I do not know if the hon. gentleman was serious when he said that. A little later he said. Statesmen are brief and never exaggerated. Accepting for a moment his definition of a statesman, he has been neither brief nor exaggerated. No corruption m Western Canada?


Michael Clark: I rise to point of order. My hon. friend is allowed a very considerable license by this House, for reasons which are well known, but after all he must not extend that to putting into any hon. gentleman's mouth words that he did not use. I said that the method of appointing returning officers had not resulted in any great unfairness. What my hon. friend says I said is that no corruption ever existed under electoral law. He expands my statement one hundred per cent, and then proceeds to knock down, a man of straw. I must ask him to keep to what I said.


Lucien Cannon: My memory is very good, and whatever lessons I get I always remember. The hon. member said in this House that out West, to his knowledge everything was square. I accept his word. The rules of the House say that a member's word must be accepted, and I accept his with pleasure. I do say, however, that when he made that declaration he must have forgotten the election fought as recently as 1917 in Edmonton where the Hon. Frank Oliver was a candidate. If that election was fair and square the notion that the hon. member from the West has of fairness and squareness in the West is not the notion we have of fairness and squareness in the East. That election was robbed-that is the only word to describe it. I say that this clause is being put in the Act so as to enable the Government to re-establish patronage at election time, so as to buy votes, so as to bribe people, so as to prevent the people of this country from having a fair election.


Henry Arthur Mackie: WTe have in the
past heard strong assertions without any proof, declamations without argument, and violent censure without dignity or moderation, but on no previous occasion either on the hustings or in this House or elsewhere, have I heard anything that so exceeded all proper limits and bounds as the remarks of the hon. member for Dorchester

this afternoon. It may be that he does not do wrong by design, but it is marvellous to me that he never does right by mistake.


Lucien Cannon: Be fair and say that
Junius said it before you.


Henry Arthur Mackie: It may also be that the hon. member has concealed his talents expecting to take the world by surprise at some time or another, but up to the present time, judging by the footprints on the sands of his political life I daresay that the Dominion of Canada will look upon him as more closely related to the prehistoric tribe to which he implied that I belonged more than any other man.


Lucien Cannon: Would my hon. friend allow me? If he attaches that interpretation to what I said, in answer to a question from him, he is altogether wrong.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I most decidedly took that interpretation. I had made up my mind not to lower myself by replying, but the longer I sat down the more piqued I felt, and you now have my resentment to your remark.


Lucien Cannon: If the hon. gentleman will allow me? I never attached that meaning to my remark; I said that only to show what was done in the past, if it was wrong, could be remedied in the present.


Henry Arthur Mackie: I accept my hon. friend's apology.


Lucien Cannon: It is not an apology; it is an explanation.


Henry Arthur Mackie: Then, Mr. Chairman, I shall continue the even course of my speech without paying any regard to the - hon. member's explanation, because it is too lame even to stand by itself.
Now, Sir, I do agree with a number of the remarks made by gentlemen on the Opposition side, because I have had the good fortune of living in the province of Quebec and know what transpires there in a large measure; but hon. gentlemen from that province have not had the good fortune of living out West, and when they seek to set for us a standard which obtains in their province, they should at least be.acquainted with the conditions which obtain in our western country.
In the province of Quebec the prothono-tary is, nine times out of ten, a man chosen from the legal profession, a man who as a matter of fact has the recommendation in some form or other of his profession. Incidentally he may have been a politician to

a certain extent, but he is looked upon as a gentleman who by reason of his standing in the profession is capable of discharging that office with dignity and satisfaction. The registrar in the province of Quebec is usually a lawyer, or some person of high standing in the community, who by reason of his political life or otherwise is given that position, and usually he discharges that office with a great deal of fairness. I can cite the committee an instance in Compton county where the registrar was Mr. Orr, a very fine gentleman indeed, and my father was the deputy registrar. Notwithstanding that they both discharged their duties very fairly at election times, the Liberal Government of the province saw to it that a man by the name of Willian Leonard from Sherbrooke was appointed instead of my father, who was then an old gentleman and had not at any time taken part in politics. However, I find no fault with that; it was the patronage system, and it is the patronage system still in that province.
The municipalities in the province of Quebec are governed in an entirely different way to the municipalities in our western provinces. In the former province we have well defined municipal boundaries and a population which is homogeneous and crystallized. We have no such thing in Western Canada.
I can see the fairness of the remarks made by hon. gentlemen from the province of Quebec, because I know the system under which they operate in that province. But what have we got out West? I will take the province of Alberta first. No man appointed by the Provincial Government except the Clerk of the Supreme Court has the sanction of any person or body. That man as a rule, apart from being a politician, is a barrister, and the Bar Association usually give the Government its advice upon the appointment. Every other office is held by a political heeler. In my election, I had as organizer a man by the name of Wadleigh, who was formerly organizer for Frank Oliver-I had confidence in that man because I knew he was favourable to the politics of my party. He organized for one provincial constituency, Beaver River. What did he find? He found that the principal Land Title men were opposing him in his organization-that the registrars of the Land Titles offices permitted their employees to go out and work against him. As a matter of fact they emptied the court house in the city of Edmonton so far as they could dispense with the services of their officials for the time being and placed them in the city to oppose me. Every department of the Provincial Government was ransacked and all the officials, outside of the deputy ministers and the other departmental heads, were placed in my constituency to work against me. Those men had to perform these duties because the chiefs in every one of those departments told them they had to go and do that work. We do not find this system prevailing in Quebec. By reason of the experience and stability of that province we find men in office who can be trusted. But if you were to appoint the sheriff of my district as my returning officer, he would make a call on Charlie Cross to give him the balance of the organization against me, and Charlie's motto is: "I fly the black flag, so look out for yourselves." Before you appoint that man to conduct my election, I say that I am just as capable of finding a good partisan as you can find.
Now, Sir, if I thought my hon. friends on the opposite side were sincere, and were not merely to-day repeating the same political expedients that during the whole course of their political career they have favoured,
I might be more inclined to listen to them. When I find the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gannon) and others so far removed from their prehistoric ancestors that they can teach others how to conduct themselves in politics and otherwise, I wish they would first of all start lecturing those Liberals in the western provinces on how to conduct themselves when they are holding elections.
It is said that a returning officer has
great powers; yes, he has. But the powers that are given to a returning officer in Alberta are as follows:
If the enumerator in like manner is fully satisfied that there is on the list the name of any person who is not qualified as a voter in such polling subdivision he may draw erasing lines through such name and write his own initials opposite thereto in the column for remarks.
Which means that during the few days before the polling the enumerator gives notice of a place where he is to be found and people may come to him and say, 'You have left off the list so many people, and they are entitled to vote." He will place those names on the list. But in another section of the Alberta Election Act that same enumerator may immediately after that, if he is satisfied, pass his pencil through those names and turn over to the deputy returning officer the morning of the poll an entirely different list than the one prepared by the enumerator.

So that when a man does come to vote, he. is challenged under our provincial Act, He has to swear his vote. His 'ballot is enclosed in an envelope. There has been a number of polls in a riding where the ballot boxes contained nothing but sealed envelopes. What have the voters to do in order to count their votes? They must appear before a justice of the peace, who notifies them that he will sit at a certain time in a certain place for the purpose of counting these votes. When the voters get there they find that the justice of the peace has moved to another place and subsequently all get a second notice informing them that the justice of the peace will sit not at place number one, but at place number two. Of course it is too late, and then the whole poll is lost. Let the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Cannon) teach the Liberals of that Government how to conduct themselves. Let hon. gentlemen opposite teach morality and decency among themselves before they tell us that we should conduct ourselves better than we have conducted ourselves in the past.
It seems to me that if we go back to the election of 1911 we can hardly be told by hon. members opposite that we are going back to the time before the deluge. In 1911, when they had the running of the election, their morality was dormant. It has been kindled and awakened only within a very short time indeed, because at that time in Ontario they named as returning officers sheriffs or registrars in only twelve or thirteen constituencies out of eighty-six. West of the Great Lakes they did not name any sheriffs or registrars as returning officers. If you refer to the sessional papers of 1912, pages 10 and 11 and following pages, you will find that my statement is true. It is indeed marvellous, Sir, that we should have a new birth so suddenly. I am afraid that the three stages of labour have been omitted in this birth. I am inclined to believe that the professions which these gentlemen make are like all professions which they have made to the country; at first they deceive the public, and at last they betray it.
The member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) has said that the Tory party was a party of the class. Well, I think we have attended the funeral of the Tory party. I suggest that if my hon. friend consults the member for Dorchester' he will be advised that he should not refer to those things because they are of the past. We are advanced; we are wearing clothes, whereas the Tory party was probably naked, to use the con-
struction of my hon. friend from Dorchester. I believe that the Tory party has been buried; we are dealing entirely with new conditions and a new party. If the Tory party were a class, at least they advocated only one sort of thing and carried out only one sort of thing. They were consistent; they did not go before the public as my hon. friends opposite have done and tell them what they would do for them when they got into power, and then absolutely adhere to the poor, despised Tory party politics.
The hon. member for Joliette did make a suggestion which has some merit: that the Civil Service Commission should make these appointments. I am just as anxious as the hon. member for Shelburne and Queen's that we should have clean elections ; that our elections should be conducted by men who are absolutely non-partisan. But to the best of my ability I will oppose the adoption of any amendment which has the effect of substituting one class of partisans for another. The Civil Service Commission is on trial. It has been carrying on only for a short time. I shall have occasion to complain about the Civil Service Commission as regards appointments which they have made in my riding; it is my privilege to do so under the Civil Service Act. Just how far the Civil Service Commission could be of assistance to us under this Act I am not certain; the hon. member for Joliette did not satisfy me fully that the commission could completely undertake this work. If my recollection is correct, there is a provision in the Civil Service Act that the commission shall obtain advice regarding appointments from the deputy heads of the various departments here and, in the provinces and particularly in rural constituencies, shall consult postmasters or other officials of the Government. Well, if the advice given by the deputy heads and by postmasters in rural districts would be no better under this Act than that which has been given in connection with some of the appointments that have been made, I am afraid that the suggestion of the hon. member for Joliette will not be very satisfactory to any of us. However, if I can be convinced by my hon. friend from Joliette and his friends that the 'Civil Service Commission, being largely removed from politics, can do greater service to the country in this regard than we ourselves can do, then I shall be ready to support his view. Until that time I shall support the law as it is, because anything that has so far been sug-

gested is merely lor the purpose of assisting the Opposition into power. And let me say this: if we had adopted the amendment which was voted down and hon. gentlemen opposite came into power-though I doubt that, they ever shall-they would be the first ones to amend that legislation by saying that upon trial it did not work out satisfactorily.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess.
The committee resumed at Eight o clock, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
iMr LAPOINTE:	I do not purpose doing
as my hon. friend (Mr. H. A. Mackie) who preceded me did, and discuss over again the amendment which has been disposed of by the committee. The argument set forth by my hon. friend showed that we were right in the stand which we were taking on this clause. He invited us to go to Alberta and reform the conditions that existed there, and he said that they are the very conditions which will prevail under this legislation as it stands. He quoted facts and brought forward arguments to show, and prove, that the system in Alberta is wrong. It is not for us to reform Alberta; it is for the people of Alberta to do that; but we do not want their methods to prevail in Dominion elections, and that is why we oppose the clause as it now reads.
The amendment of my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding) has been disposed of, and I would suggest another way of dealing with the clause. The Chief Electoral Officer will be a permanent official. We are giving him great powers; his functions will be almost judicial functions; he will be independent of the Government and oif political parties. Why not give him jurisdiction in the appointment of returning officers?
Mr. PETER iMcGIBBON (Muskoka): What would the Chief Electoral Officer know about conditions, say in Vancouver?


Ernest Lapointe: What does the Governor General in Council know about returning officers in the various ridings? The Governor General in Council in this case means the minister representing the particular province. In my province the minister would be the hon. gentleman who is supposed to represent it in the Senate. He is going to appoint returning officers in my riding and in the constituencies of the hon. gentlemen from that province. What does he. know about the returning officers in the various constituencies? He gets information from the sitting member or the defeated candidate, as the case may be, or the chiefs of his party in the particular constituency. There is nothing to prevent the Chief Electoral Officer, who will be, or who at any rate, is supposed to be, an independent party, from getting the same information. He will get information from my hon. friend as regards his constituency; he may get information from me as regards my constituency, but he may get information from somebody else also. He may consult authorities in the various constituencies and, as his functions will Ire of a permanent character, he will be able to do that prior to election time. He may first inquire as to who would be the best man to be a returning officer in a constituency, then get into communication with that man and educate him as to his duties when the election takes place, and thus avoid many of the difficulties, delays and troubles that happen at every election.


Mr. BELAND:: He is a permanent official.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes. I offer the suggestion to the Acting tSolicitor General (Mr. Guthrie) who has invited us to make suggestions, and I really think that this 'question is a serious one and that we are not wasting the time of the committee in discussing it as was suggested this afternoon. The question of fairness and unfairness arises at election times. However fair a cause may be, that cause cannot succeed against crookedness and unfair methods. We want 'fairness in elections, we want electoral machinery that will do justice to everybody; and I think this suggestion of mine would go far to relieve what is in the public mind as to what may happen under the system which will be established under the present legislation.


Hugh Guthrie: Since the amendment
to this clause was voted on, two suggestions have been made. One is that returning officers should be appointed by the Civil Service Commission, a commission that has jurisdiction over the appointment of the Civil 'Service of this country, and which is thoroughly-


Jean-Joseph Denis: If the minister will allow
me, I will withdraw my suggestion, and will support the suggestion made by my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe), because his suggestion is much better than mine.


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that the
suggestion that the Civil Service 'Commission should have authority to make the

appointments of returning officers has been withdrawn.
Mr. DENI'S: So far as I am concerned.


Hugh Guthrie: I thought when it was
made that it was rather hollow. The suggestion, however, which has now been made by my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) is one that has received considerable attention from the Government.' The question of appointing permanent officials was one that was thoroughly considered;, likewise our best consideration was given to the question of appointments by the Chief Electoral Officer, and after the best consideration we could give to every method, we decided that the old system was preferable to any other. The office of Chief Electoral Officer is a position created for the first time under this Bill. His knowledge of conditions in Canada is necessarily limited. The first suggestion arose from that individual himself, and he intimated in plain language that it would foe impossible for him to select returning officers. He said that he would have to rely on information supplied to him from other sources, his suggestion being that it would come from the members. But to my mind, there is a greater objection than that. We have appointed him a permanent official; we have clothed him with almost, judicial powers; we have placed his office on the same plane as that of judges, and (he cannot be removed except for cause. If he had the appointment of returning officers in this country, no matter how honest his intention might he, somewhere or another in Canada there might he a slip-there have been, slips in the past-and that high functionary, the Chief Electoral Officer, would immediately be charged with partisanship. The same result would happen in the, case of a judge, if a judge were given the appointment of these returning officers. There is no system ever devised in this country or any other country, so far as I know, which could be called a perfect system. We have to take into account the fact that there might be some mishap, some misadventure, some bad appointment. That will not be the rule, but probably the rare exception, and if such a thing takes place, where ;s the responsibility? Under the clause as it stands, the responsibility rests upon the Government, The responsibility must rest upon some one's shoulders.
But there is another point and one worthy of some consideration, It is enacted by section 42 of the British NoTtb America Act, which gives this Parliament its constitution, that the Governor General |Mr. Guthrie.]
is the person who shall assemble and dissolve Parliament, and issue writs, and the like: and the old statute of this House has always been that the Governor General shall make these appointments. Whether or not the present proposal is an infringement upon the Royal prerogative, I will not say, but I think in the light of present constitutional methods, When we speak oi power being given to the Governor General, we mean the Governor General advised by hlis council, and i*n the present Bill, the language has been changed from that of the British North America Act and it has been placed in .the present clause as the Governor General in Council. Constitutionally, and under the strict letter of the law, it may be that we should have left out the words "in Council," but I fancy that His Excellency the Governor General would never undertake to issue a writ unless advised by his council that he Should do so. At this distance of time, after the experience of centuries under our British system, I think we all agree that His Excellency the Governor General in this country and His Majesty, the King, in Great Britain, act, in such cases, only on the advice of their ministers. We have S0' stated in this Bill, and I doubt very much if, under the language of our constitutional Act, it would be permmissible for us to allow the King's writ o.r, in this case, His Excellency's writ, to issue except in the method prescribed by the constitutional Act-. There is not only the question of the appointment, but the tetill greater question of the responsibility. The responsibility in the present instance rests upon the Government. If the Government does wrong, if bad appointments are made, the people have their remedy in Parliament. That is not so in the case of appointments by the Chief Electoral Officer.
But I can see practical reasons why the system proposed in the Bill is better than the system proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe). I believe we shall have better returning officers under the present Bill than we should have under the system which he suggests, and my reason for stating so is the candid confession of the Parliamentary Counsel himself, who says thaf he would be in absolute ignorance as to conditions in the various ridings of Canada and would have to be guided by the advice of somebody, and those somebodies would likely be the members of this House. In the one case you have the authority of the Governor General in Council for the appointment, and you have likewise the responsibility upon the Government; in

the other case you have the limited knowledge and the irresponsibility. For my part I must say that, as between the two systems, I very imuch prefer the system we have operated under ever since we had a country here.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 28-polling divisions: -
Jacques Bureau: I ask that this section be allowed to stand. The leader of the Opposition is not here and I believe he has some remarks to make in reference to it.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no objection.
Section stands.
On section 29-Qualifications of electors:


Hugh Guthrie: I move that this section stand. Some hon. members on the other side have requested that sections 29 and 32 be not proceeded with before Tuesday, and I have agreed to that proposal.
Section stands.
On section 30-Disqualification of electors:


Jean-Joseph Denis: In the last line on page 12, subclause (a), the words "Governor in Council" are used. I think this should read "Governor General in Council."


Hugh Guthrie: That is right. I move
that the subclause be amended by adding after the word " Governor" in line 38 the word "General."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.	.
Mr. POWER:: In subsection (2) any person who votes, or induces or procures any other person to vote at an election, knowing that such person is for any reason disqualified, or is non-qualified or incompetent to vote, shall be guilty of an illegal practice. Why not include persons who have been already condemned for such practices?


Hugh Guthrie: That is not necessary because a man can be sworn at the polls as to whether he has eyer committed an illegal practice, and if he has he can be deprived of his vote. There is another Act on the statute book applying to corrupt and illegal practices and^ the punishment meted out to wrong-doers. Under that there is no condemnation until after trial, but there has always been in our oath a clause to prohibit from voting men who have been guilty of bribery and corruption. It has not been' very effective, but that has always been the law.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: What is meant by the disfranchisement referred to in subclause
(O?


Hugh Guthrie: That is the same clause as the one under the former law. The Disfranchising Act has been on the statute book for many years and it applies to persons guilty of corrupt practices. It provides a mode of investigation and trial, and the penalty is one of seven years disqualification as well as other penalties imposed by the Act.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Subclause (g) provides that persons who by the laws of any province are disqualified from voting for a member of the legislative assembly of such province in respect of race shall not be qualified to vote in that province under this Act. The clause goes on to say:
Provided, however, that the provisions of this paragraph shall not disqualify or render incompetent to vote any person who has served in the naval, military or air forces of Canada in the late war-.
Should you not add after "Canada" the words "Great Britain and the Allies"?


Hugh Guthrie: That would open a pretty wide subject, and I do not know that I would be favourable to the suggestion. Such persons as that proposal would include might not be British subjects.
Mr. POWErt: That objection is fully met in section 29 which emphatically declares that they must he British subjects.


Hugh Guthrie: When we come to that
section the whole question will be open for discussion.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If we got through with section 30 to-night we might not be able to return to this particular paragraph on another occasion, and it strikes me that we should allow Imperial soldiers who fought, if they are otherwise duly qualified, to vote. There is no reason why we should not.


Hugh Guthrie: If we included every one wdio fought in the late war for Great Britain and the Allies-


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Well, leave out the Allies.
Mr. CrUTHRIE:	Those persons have not
the qualifications upon which we insist in section 29.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Certain British subjects who are otherwise fully qualified under section 29 might be disqualified under subclause (g) of section 30.


Hugh Guthrie: That is only where they are disqualified by a provincial law.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Certain British subjects
who fought for Great Britain during the late war and who are otherwise fully qualified to vote might be disqualified by the legislature of some province.


Hugh Guthrie: Hardly.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Well, if they would not be disqualified why not allow soldiers who fought for Great Britain and her Allies to come under the Act?


Hugh Guthrie: The clause in this section is intended to protect those who by reason of race may be disqualified through any provincial law. If they fought in the Canadian naval or military forces they will be protected ip their vote. I cannot imagine that any provincial law disqualifies any British or French subject.
. Mr. POWER': What about Hindus?
Mr. GUTHRIE;: The Act does apply to Hindus.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If Hindus generally are excluded from the franchise, at least those Hindus who fought in France and throughout the world on behalf of Great Britain and the Allies should be considered. You are giving the vote to Hindus who fought in the Canadian army-I presume there were some who, did-and I do not see any reason why the Hindu in the British army should be discriminated against. If you exclude one you should exclude the other.


Hugh Guthrie: We do not make an exception of any one. We merely recognize the provincial disqualification imposed by the law of any province by reason of race.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: You say, however, that if a man who is disqualified by race has fought in the naval or military forces of Canada he will be permitted to vote in spite of that provincial disqualification. Is that right?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Then, why not give the privilege to men of the same race who fought in the Imperial forces?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think that there would be many cases of this character. There might be an isolated case here and there, but I do not think we should change the whole law merely to meet one or two exceptions. So far as I have had evidence on the subject-and I have got it from 
official	sources-there were about 194
Japanese who were British subjects and who enlisted in the forces of Canada. Over fifty of them lost their lives in the campaign, forty came home badly wounded, and the rest returned whole in body and mind. There were also a few British subjects of Chinese origin, but I believe the number was very' limited-something like twelve. I have been informed that there were no men in British Columbia of Hindu origin who fought in the forces of Canada. Subsection (g) will have very limited application in any event.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Were any of the Hindus
in British Columbia British subjects or British reservists?


Hugh Guthrie: I have heard there were only two. I do not know whether there were any reservists or not.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Would it not be possible
that we should at some future time invite to this country British or Hindu reservists?


Hugh Guthrie: We can amend the law if we decide to do so.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I object to any disqualification against any British soldier-being put upon the statutes of Canada. If they are good enough to fight they were good enough to vote. ,


Jean-Joseph Denis: I wish to direct the attention of the minister to subsection (f). This subsection specifies three classes of persons who will not have the right to vote. These are (1) prisoners undergoing punishment for criminal offences; (2) persons in lunatic asylums, and (3) persons
-who are maintained in whote or in part as inmates receiving charitable support or care in municipal poorhouses or houses of industry, or are inmates receiving charitable support in any institution receiving aid from the government of a province under any statute in that behalf.
1 wish to direct the attention of the minister to the third class. This is a condition which exists in the city from which I comq. We have charitable institutions which receive inmates. Some of these inamtes pay partly for their keep; others do not pay at all. I submit that those who pay a certain amount for their keep, say $10 a month, should have the right to vote. These people are only maintained by charity to a certain extent. The clause which I have just quoted provides that inmates of a charitable institution which receives aid from the government of a province under a statute in that behalf has no right to vote. In my city we have a charitable institution which

has, we will say, 100 inmates and it receives from the province of Quebec between $200 and $400 a year.


Henri Sévérin Béland: For each patient?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Not for each patient but
for the whole institution. The expense of keeping these inmates runs into thousands of dollars. It just happens that the provincial government distributes a very small budget each year amongst charitable institutions. This clause, read strictly according to the letter, provides that the inmates of all these institutions which receive however small an amount from the province shall be deprived of their votes. Probably these conditions are not known to the minister and I would like to call them to his attention.


Hugh Guthrie: Unless there were very grave reasons I would not change this clause. It was put in the law many years, ago deliberately, and it is based upon the principle that a man who is receiving public charity is for that period of time disfranchised.


Jean-Joseph Denis: If a man receives public
charity in part only, if his board is worth $40 or $50 a month and he pays half of that amount and receives charity for the balance, is it right that he should be deprived of his vote?


Hugh Guthrie: He is disqualified under this section. He is really an inmate of a charitable institution.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: That is not right at
all.


Hugh Guthrie: It was considered right for a number of years.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: These institutions are only receiving $400 a year from the Quebec Government. What good reason can you give for depriving a man under these circumstances of his vote? It is not because men are poor that they cannot judge of what is going on in this country and it is not because they are poor that they should not be allowed to vote. My hon. friend (Mr. Denis is absolutely right when he says that in these institutions in the small cities in Quebec there are people who are paying for half of their board. The Government pay only $400 a year as aid to an institution of this kind, and I do not see why these poor people should be deprived of their votes.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON:: Would the
hon. gentleman extend that privilege to the inmates of poorhouses, Indians and wards of the Government?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Even although a man be poor in this country he should not be deprived of his vote.
Mr. G.UTHRIE: A man's poverty is not the test. The poorest man in Canada can vote, but if he is receiving Government aid, or is a ward of the Government, he should not vote.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Do you call $400 a
year for the maintenance of 100 inmates in an institution, Government aid?


Mr GUTHRIE:: Yes, I do.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Well you ought to be ashamed of it.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I would like to ask the
minister if he would not kindly accept as a friendly suggestion that he strike out in line 14 the words " or in part." I do not think it would hurt anybody to give the vote to a man who has a revenue of $300 a year but whose income is not sufficient to pay for his board entirely. A portion of his board is paid, not by the State, but by charitable contributions from somebody else. I believe it will be perfectly in order to allow that man to vote. He has at least half the right of a citizen as he pays for half of his board.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Give the vote to all.


Ernest Lapointe: I would not like to let it go on record in Hansard that persons referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Gauvreau) would be deprived of their votes. The section applies only to those " inmates receiving charitable support in any institution receiving aid from the Government of a province under any statute in that behalf." These institutions that my hon. friend has referred to are getting $400, as he says, but not under statute. These are subventions or subsidies that are granted each year by the Government.


Mr. VIEN:: The subsidy is a statute.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not think there
are statutory subventions every year. I would like the minister's opinion on that.


Hugh Guthrie: I prefer the section as it is drawn. A government that was evil disposed could line up a grand squad of voters by simply boarding a public institution of this country. That is not permitted under this clause. There is a good reason for this provision. It was charged at one time in the province of Ontario that institutions in the city of Hamilton were used by the Ontario Government as nothing but hives for parties who voted

at election times, until that was stopped by law. Anybody who receives public aid should not be entitled to exercise the franchise while receiving that aid.


Ernest Lapointe: Quite right, but there are institutions, as my hon. friend (Mr. Gauvreau) has pointed out, where the people are paying the full amount, or a fair amount, for their board.


Hugh Guthrie: they would not be disqualified.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, because these institutions have other functions to perform and they are subsidized to a certain extent. It may be only a small amount, say $400 a year, to assist them in doing the work they have to do. Are men who are paying a fair amount for their board at such an institution to be deprived of their vote, just because the institution is receiving a few hundred dollars from the Provincial Government?


Hugh Guthrie: No, a man who is paying a fair amount for his board is not deprived of his vote; there is no question about that. But if his board is paid for in whole or in part by the institution he is deprived of his vote. I know several institutions that charge what my hon. friend calls a fair amount. These boarders are not charity patients; they pay their way.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: But if the institution receives a small amount of assistance from the Government?


Hugh Guthrie: That does not disqualify them.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: The law does not say so.


Hugh Guthrie: The section reads:
Persons who	are maintained in whole
or in part as inmates receiving charitable support or care in municipal poorhouses or houses of industry, or are inmates receiving charitable support in any institution receiving aid from the government of a province under any statute in that behalf.
It says " inmates receiving charitable support." If they pay their way, or pay a fair amount as my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) has suggested, I have no hesitation in saying, they are not disqualified.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Let me give an
illustration. In the province of Quebec farmers may he left in their old age with no children to take further care of, and they may have a couple of thousand dollars saved up. They go to a charitable institution and say:	Will you keep us for the

balance of our lives if we give you this $2,000? The institution accepts it. Under this section those men would be deprived of their votes because they were in an institution receiving aid from a Provincial Government.


Hugh Guthrie: I say, no; but if they
were in what is popularly know as a poor-house, or a house of industry, they would not be entitled to vote under this section.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: That is what we complain of.


Hugh Guthrie: The provision is old,
and I think it is founded in good sense.


Jacques Bureau: A man may not cost the institution anything, but still may be receiving " charitable support." Suppose I put a poor man in an institution subsidized by the Provincial Government. I pay for his board. Therefore, he is receiving charitable support from me in an institution subsidized by the Government. He would not be entitled to vote under this section.


Mr. GRIESBACH:: Do you think he
should have a vote?


Jacques Bureau: Why not, if I think he is honest and decent enough for me to deprive myself of $20 or $25 a month to see him taken care of, I think he deserves the vote just as much as anybody else. Some men have money and don't deserve votes, and others have no money and you are depriving them of votes. You ought not to value a man or citizenship by the dollar stam dard, but that seems to have been the standard followed in too much legislation recently. The dollar seems to have been almighty. That is not the principle we stand for on this side of the House. It is not the man who carries his soul in his purse that makes a good citizen, but the man with a soul and a heart. I think a man without a dollar who is good enough to be taken care of by his fellow-citizens in a charitable institution should have the vote just as much as myself or thq hon. member (Mr. Griesbach).
I think the clause is susceptible of another interpretation. It says "receiving charitable support in any institution receiving aid from the Government." Now the charitable support may come from some source outside of the institution, but under this section the man would be disqualified because he was receiving such support while in any institution subsidized 'by the Government.


William Antrobus Griesbach: The general proposition in a free state is that the franchise shall be exercised by free and independent electors, and in my judgment it is most important that we should so provide. A man who lives by charity is neither free nor independent.


Jacques Bureau: Then you would deprive a son, twenty-one years of age or oveT, of the vote if he was supported by his father?


William Antrobus Griesbach: That is not charity.


Jacques Bureau: He is supported by his father while attending school.


William Antrobus Griesbach: In the case cited by my hon. friend (Mr. Lapointe) of a person paying a fixed sum for his board, if that sum is accepted in actuarial expectation of life, it is a payment, not charity. I would fancy that the law as originally drafted was based on the assumption that in a free state the franchise could be exercised only by those who are free and independent.


Mr. MANION:: In Ontario the Provincial Government gives a certain subsidy to the general hospitals. Now by too strict a reading of this clause it might be taken that the patients in these general hospitals were disqualified from voting, but as a matter of fact this clause is an old one and they never have been debarred from voting. Patients in general hospitals in this province have always voted in an election. I have seen that they have got out to vote at some elections myself. There is nothing in the law against it. I do not think the clause would apply to the institutions referred to by my hon. friend and others, or to institutions such as general hospitals. I think this clause is intended to apply specifically to poorhouses, where the inmates are absolute wards of the Government.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Why not say so in the clause?


Thomas Vien: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Mandon)is absolutely right. The clause could easily be amended to make that point clear by substituting for the words "are maintained in whole or in part as inmates receiving charitable support" the words "are maintained in whole as inmates receiving charitable support." Otherwise, if a man pays $200 for his board in such an institution it may be contended that as the board is worth $400 his contribution of $200 is really only half of his board, the remainder being "charitable support." I contend that we should amend this clause by striking out the words "or in part" and
making the clause read that a man will be disqualified to vote when he is wholly maintained as indicated, and not in part only.


Hugh Guthrie: It is rather aimusing to me to listen to the speech of my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) and to notice the mock indignation which he affects in condemning tihis clause as constituting a property test for the exercise of the franchise. My hon. friend was a member of the government that deliberately enacted this Clause in 1896, and deliberately re-enacted it .in 1908; and in 1894 when the clause first appeared on our statute books it was passed at the instance of the Liberal Opposition, it being charged that the Government of the day could utilize these poor-houses or charitable institutions for the purpose of colonizing votes which they could lead out on election day if they saw fit. The clause was inserted at the instigation of the Liberal party; so if it constitutes a property qualification, who is to blame for it?


Thomas Vien: Is that a reason why we should not change it?


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is absolutely -sound in principle. There should be no property qualification or no test of riches in this country. But where a man is in the position of being a ward of the Government and is receiving public aid, I do not think he is entitled to the franchise. We have recognized that principle in our legislation in other respects, that being the way we have treated our Indian wards; they have not .a. vote yet, and they do not get it under this Bill. Any one, therefore, who is receiving money from the Government which in the final analysis is given by way of charity, should not he qualified to vote. That principle has been recognized since 1894, .and was re-affirmed twice, in 1896 and in 1908, by the Government of which my hon. friend from Three Rivers was a member. The Government to-day re-affirms that principle in the present Bill, and I think it is a very proper principle.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. gentleman did not understand my point at all. I say that under this clause the fact of being an inmate of an institution .subsidized by the Government disqualifies a man, although he receives no aid.


Hugh Guthrie: Not a line of that has been changed; it is the same word for word as the language in the old Act.


Jacques Bureau: That makes no difference. My hon. friend laughs at .what he calls my mock indignation, and seems surprised that

I may have changed my mind. The Minister of Militia and Defence and Acting Solicitor General is surprised that a man changes his mind! Well, Sir, this is a climax. I have changed my mind, and for cause.


An hon. MEMBER:: Because you are in opposition.


Jacques Bureau: Because I am in opposition? No ! Because I find something lacking in the clause. I dissent from it not from personal motives; I do not care whether the inmates of any of these institutions vote or not, but they are a class that I want to protect, for I contend that an inmate who costs the institution nothing ought not to be disqualified from voting. The disqualification is not based on the amount of aid he receives from the institution, but it is based on where he happens to be at the time he receives the aid. If the clause were to read:
-as inmates receiving charitable support or care in municipal poorhouses or houses of industry, or inmates receiving charitable support in and from any institution receiving aid from the government of a province under any statute in that behalfthat would be fair. But the word "from" is not in this clause, and a man may receive Charitable support in an institution, although that support may cost the institution nothing.
Now, the fact that this principle has been enacted and re-enac'ted, I think, is no answer; any man who wishes to be serious in any argument o-ught to drop the tu quoque. There is nothing more amusing than to see my hon. friend the Acting Solicitor General coming back and crying over his past sins when he was a Liberal and reproaching Liberals for rvvhat they have done.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not reproach, 1 uphold them.


Jacques Bureau: I know; bu't in other circumstances you have reproached the Liberal party and tried to get behind them in order to cover your own skin. But that will not do-. We are going to discuss the question on its merits, and my hon. friend may talk in stentorian tones and with all his accustomed dignity, but he is not going to scare me out of this discussion. Mine is not mock indignation. As I said just now, I do not belong to. the bunch who carry their, souls in their purses; I carry my heart in my breast, and I have enough sense of justice to try to protect men who deserve to be protected.

I move, Mr. Chairman, to amend clause (f) of subsection 1 of section 30 by adding after the word "support" in the sixteenth line the words "and from."


Lucien Cannon: I think the whole question comes down to the interpretation to be given to the words "charitable support." In our province very often an old man will give his savings of $500 or $600 to' a charitable institution so that he may be maintained there for the rest of his life. Will such a person be disqualified under this clause? He is wholly supported by the charitable institution, but that support he gets in consideration of the amount he gave when he entered the institution. I would like to knoiw what interpretation the Acting Solicitor General would give to such a case. Would the man be disentitled to vote? If he is, I think at is very unfair. This is a very important question, Mr. Chairman. We have institutions in our province maintaining hundreds of people under the conditions that I have mentioned, but because for some reason or other the Government gives a paltry sum to that institution, arei we:	going to1 deprive
those people of their right to vote? I would be willing to accept the clause as it stands provided we had a proper interpretation of the words "charitable support," but there is no such interpretation anywhere In the Bill. Who is going to tell us what it means? Where is "charitable support" to begin and where is it to end? My hon. friend '(Mr. Bureau), with that elevation of mind which characterizes his participation 'in every debate in the House, has carried the question to a higher level and has put it to us in the following form: will a rich man be entitled to vote because he is rich and a poor man be deprived of his right to vote because he is poor? The qualification of a voter is not to be found in the dollars that he possesses but in the brains that Jie may have. When I meet some gentlemen who have inherited lots of money, I thank Heaven that 'they did so, because if they had not inherited money they would never have been able to earn five cents for themselves. If the poor man is not entitled to vote, then this is no longer a democratic country. The minister should give heed to ancient history. In many cities in Greece only poor 9 p.m. men were entitled to vote, rich men were debarred; 'because the people thought that having individual and personal interest of his own, the rich man could not consider a question on its merits as a poor man could. I think'there is much in favour of that contention.

Mr. I.APOINTE:	It will not take on
the other side.
Mr. QANtNION: I know that on the other side rich men are often heard with more interest and more consideration than poor men. When electors like Sir William Mackenzie, Sir Donald -Mann, Sir Joseph Fla-velle and Lord Atholstan cast their ballots on any question, their decision is listened to with more interest than that of the poor man who has only fifty cents in his pocket. I do my best to believe that the minister is sincere when he tells us that he wants to have a fair franchise law. If he is, ho>v can he consistently incorporate in this Bill a clause which can be so interpreted as to have the effect of withholding the vote from a man simply because he is poor?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Let us suppose that a disabled returned soldier receives from the Government a pension; that that pension is not sufficient for his support or maintenance and that he goes into some charitable institution and pays that pension to the institution on account of his board. Suppose that the amount of the pension is not sufficient to pay for his maintenance in that institution. The man may be crippled and unable to do any work. Such a man is supported partly by charity; is the minister of the opinion that he should lose his right to vote? He certainly loses it under this clause.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend has put a somewhat extreme case. I understood that our pensions were administered upon the principle that a man should receive enough to prevent his being the object or subject of charity. However, lest such a case might happen as my hon. friend has referred to, I shall be content to put a provision in this section to the effect that it shall not apply to a returned soldier.


Mr.   GANNON@: What about the case of
a man who gives $600 to a charitable institution? Is he debarred from voting?


Hugh Guthrie: It depends upon whether or not he is there as a charitable patient. If he pays his way, he is not debarred from voting.
Mr.* GANNON: Who is going to decide?


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose there are tribunals that decide all these questions. If the voter is subsequently prosecuted the matter would certainly be decided by the courts. The last clause provides for that.


Thomas Vien: Would the returning officer
put him on the electoral list?


Hugh Guthrie: That is a matter which the returning officer will have to decide; I cannot decide it for him. Every case will have to rest on its own merits. To my mind, the language is clear. A charitable patient is not a person who is a subject of 'private charity; he has to be in an institution. Whether he is paying his way or not is a point of fact, and the facts, I assume, will differ in almost every case; but I would have no difficulty in deciding, if I knew the fact, whether the man was paying his way or whether he was receiving charity, and I do not think any one else would have any difficulty. I can quite understand, if a man goes to an institution and makes a bargain for his keep, based on his probability of life, even if it is speculative, that is not charity, it is a bargain; and if the man lives twice as long as was contemplated, that is not chartiy, it is a bargain.


John Dowsley Reid: We have, I presume, at least one sanatorium in each province, and there are in the sanatoriums to-day hundreds of patients receiving treatment who are not returned soldiers. The charges in these sanatoriums are not sufficient to cover expenses, and the sanatoriums receiving grants from the Provincial Governments. Will patients such as I describe be debarred from voting under this measure? Patients in hospitals would be in the same position.


Hugh Guthrie: The question is whether they are receiving charity. A man who is paying his way in a hospital or a sanatorium, a man who is paying the fee prescribed by the institution, is not receiving charity.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Supposing he is a poor man?


Hugh Guthrie: If he is receiving charity, he is disqualified.


John Dowsley Reid: The charges in the sanatoriums, at least in Saskatchewan, are not sufficient to* cover expenses, and grants are made by the Provincial Government and by charitable individuals. Therefore, I contend that the inmate of such a sanatorium is receiving charity.


Hugh Guthrie: If a hospital or a sanatorium fixes a rate which applies to all persons as the rate at which patients shall be admitted to that institution, that is not charity; that is paying your way.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: There are a number of members who are honestly dissatis-

fled with this clause as it stands, there being a fear that some people who should not be debarred from voting will be debarred. I know that, in our province at least, the hospitals and sanatoriums are receiving what might be called charitable support; they are supported partially by the Provincial Government, and the patients are not supposed to pay the full amount that is required for their keep. I am not saying that a judge would decide that they were receiving charity; I do not say that he would decide otherwise; I do not know what I would do were I a judge. But I think the minister should take a little pains to see that this clause is so clearly worded that these people will know whether they have a right to vote or not. I do_not, for a moment, want to associate myself with those who consider that people in poor-houses, or who are receiving public charity, should have a vote, because I think the Government is quite right in refusing to give the franchise to those who are practically wards of the Government.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: The hon. member is wrong all the same.


Levi Thomson: I may be wrong, or I may be right; but it is quite common throughout the Dominion that inmates of hospitals and sanatoriums are receiving what might be called charitable support, and I think the minister should make it clear that those people are not covered by this clause.


Robert James Manion: I believe this is mostly a misunderstanding and the minister can easily cover it by simply adding to this clause the words "this clause shall not apply to inmates of institutions such as hospitals who pay the prescribed fees of those institutions," As regards the Toronto General Hospital or hospitals in any other Ontario city, there is a prescribed fee, such as perhaps one dollar per day to be paid by patients in what are called public wards. That one dollar a day does not keep a patient in the hospital; the average of keep for the hospital may amount to $1.50 or $1.75 per day. Such a patient is not really a charity patient; he is paying the prescribed fee of the hospital; but at the same time he is living in an institution receiving aid from a Provincial Government, because the Provincial Government of Ontario-I do not know about Quebec-gives aid to these institutions such as general hospitals. I certainly do not agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Cannon) who said that the Government were attempting to dis-

franchise people because they were poor. I wish to disassociate myself from that criticism, because I do not think that is the intention of the Government.


Thomas Vien: The minister said so clearly.


Robert James Manion: If the clause I suggest were added to the clause, the whole point would be cleared up.


Hugh Guthrie: I would have no objection to adding a clause such as that suggested by my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) to the effect that "this section shall not apply to patients in hospitals, sanatoriums or other similar institutions who pay the fee from time to time prescribed by such institutions for patients."


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Or give a certain
amount of money.	*


Hugh Guthrie: I would not go that
length. We have had experience under this section for a good many years, and we have had no trouble with it. I believe we shall have more difficulty if we change it than if we leave it as it stands.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: New conditions have arisen since the war.


Hugh Guthrie: This section has never done any harm to anybody, and I think we are letting our imagination run away with Us. Some suggestions are good and some not so good. I am afraid, if we start meddling with this section, we shall get into more trouble than we have under it at present.


Jacques Bureau: Why is the word "patient" to be used instead of the word "inmate" as used in the clause?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not moving this as an amendment; I am just suggesting it.


Peter Robert McGibbon: In case the committee might misunderstand the meaning of the last suggestion, I may say that in many institutions there is no definite rate; the rate is governed by what the patient is able to pay. Very frequently, the medical doctor fixes the rate. Sometimes the parent will say that he can pay three dollars or five dollars or ten dollars a week for his child. There is no particular standard on which you can base a recommendation of that kind.


Hugh Guthrie: I think we had better
let this clause remain as it is for a while.


Mr. McKENZIE:: There are many different kinds of charity. Supposing a charitable institution, such as the Red Cross Society, should take on a patient whom they want to

look after, and they could not find any place in which to put him except in sortie such institution as we have been discussing. They put him in that institution and they pay his board. He is not receiving public charity, but this association of charitable people undertakes to support him in that institution. If he is an intelligent man and is qualified to vote except that this association of charitable people is keeping him in that institution, I do not think that he should be deprived of his franchise. I should think that it would be better if the word "public" were inserted before the words "charitable support" wherever they appear in this clause. I know that in our province, since I remember anything about elections, a man who was getting money from the overseers of the poor, could not vote because he was receiving public aid, but that could not apply to a person who was a ward of a charitable institution such as I have described. There are two places in the section where the word "public" should be insei'ted before the word "charity," and I offer the suggestion to the minister.


Hugh Guthrie: I have no objection to that amendment if it will make the section any clearer. The section is not intended to apply to private charities, but if the word "public" helps to make that intention more evident I do not mind inserting it.


Georges Henri Boivin: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Mr. Bureau).


Hugh Guthrie: I think that the insertion of the word "public" will serve the purpose better.


Jacques Bureau: I do not know of any private institutions receiving aid from the Government in our province.


Hugh Guthrie: I am inclined to adopt the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) and to insert the word "public" after the word "receiving" in the fourteenth and sixteenth lines.


The CHAERMIAN:: The committee can dispose of only one amendment at a time.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. BURiElAU: I think the suggestion covers the point I have in mind. I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.


REVISED
Hugh Guthrie: I now move to amend subclause (f) by adding the word "public" before the word "charitable" in lines fourteen and sixteen.


Mr. ROSS:: Will that meet the objection raised by the hon. member (Mr. Manion)? If a man pays so much a day in a hospital, to the upkeep of which the Government contributes some assistance, it might be argued that that man was receiving public charitable aid to some extent. 1 do not think that the proposed amendment meets the objection. Perhaps he will tell the committee whether he considers it satisfactory.


Jacques Bureau: Will the hon. member (Mr. Manion) comply with that request? If a man did not pay the full fee charged private patients in a hospital that received support from the Government he might be considered to be receiving public charity in part. Does not my hon. friend think that the words "in part" in line fourteen should be omitted?


Robert James Manion: I must apologize to my hon. friend (Mr. Ross) for my apparent indifference to his question. I did not hear him. With regard to the' suggestion of the hon. member for Three Rivers and St. Maurice, I think it is a disputable point as to whether this provision would apply to patiepts in an ordinary general hospital, at least in any city in Ontario. I think the suggestion made by the minister is perfectly satisfactory.


Jacques Bureau: W'e have agreed to put the word "public" after the word "receiving" and before the word "charitable" in the fourteenth and sixteenth lines. If my hon. friend will read the subclause he will see the purport of my suggestion.


Robert James Manion: It is not these lines to which I have reference; it is the last three lines of the section:
Or are inmates receiving charitable support in any institution receiving aid from the government of a province under any statute in that behalf.
The hospital receives a certain amount per day per patient. In Ontario, I think, it is fifty cents per day; so that if a patient in a public ward paid a dollar, that fifty cents would make up the difference between the cost of his ntaintenance and the amount he paid. It is questionable whether this clause would apply to such patients. In the elections in my constituency patients in the general hospital voted, and I cannot


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
COMMONS [DOT]
see that this clause would apply to such electors.
Mr. ROS'S: Does the .Acting Solicitor General think that the amendment he has moved meets the objection of the hon. member (Mr. Manion)?
Hugh Guthrie: It was not intended to.


James Hamilton Ross: Well, should it not?


Hugh Guthrie: I think that the section should stand as it is with the amendment proposed. The hospitals receive a per diem allowance per head from the Government. This is not for the maintenance of the individual patient; it is only a method by which is reached the amount which the hospital shall receive. When a patient pays his money to the hospital he is prima facie paying his way, and so far as I know his right to vote has never been challenged, and I doubt very much whether it ever will be. The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) raised a question as to persons receiving private charity. Private charity could not form a ground of disqualification, and it never was intended that it should. To meet the point raised by the hon. member, however, I move the adoption of the amendment which I have proposed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Lucien Cannon: In the second line of the same subclause there appear the words "criminal offences." I understand that the word "criminal" in this connection refers only to offences committed under certain statutes. What would be the status of a man who had been incarcerated for not having observed the temperance laws of Ontario? This man might be in jail where the hon. the Preseident of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) was running. If he should be condemned to jail under a federal statute he would be barred. But if he were condemned under a provincial statute would he be entitled to vote while the other man was prevented from voting? As the clause reads now an offender under a federal statute would be debarred, and I think that offenders under provincial laws and municipal by-laws should also be included.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think it amounts to very much; if he is in jail, he is not going to vote.	,


Lucien Cannon: I know a case where the prisoners "were allowed, under a sheriff's guard, to go and register their votes and they came back afterwards.


Hugh Guthrie: That is a breach of the law. '


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I wish to make myself perfectly clear to the committee in regard to the amendment I suggested, and whether I shall be supported or not, I am going to propose it. The clause is one which disqualifies certain electors. When wre come to subsection (g) we find that, notwithstanding the fact that certain provinces have disqualified a class of people on account of their race, we lift that disqualification from people of that particular race provided they have served in the naval, military or naval air forces of Canada. The purport of my amendment is that the same proviso be made on behalf of those who have served in the naval, military or air services of Great Britain or the Allies. If some hon. members prefer it I will simply put in "Great Britain" for the present, and necessarily and later on add the Allies. But in any case my amendment as it stands is to give the right to vote, notwithstanding racial disqualification, to anybody who wore the King's uniform and fought for the Empire during the late war.
I do not think I need to labour the point with members of this House. We heard during and after the war a great deal about the gratitude that was due to the soldiers from members of this House and others throughout the country. We recognized that in a substantial way when we gave certain rights to Imperial veterans in reference to pensions, and we recognized it in various other respects. It seems to me that we should give to people coming to this country the best welcome we can, and the best welcome we can give them is the right to vote, always provided that they are otherwise qualified. I could quote at length from the debates in this House in reference to this subject, but I will content myself -with calling attention to what the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) says, as reported at page 545 of Hansard, second session, 1919:
If he was a British subject and had at no time resided in this country, there was no place to which Parliament could with propriety allot his vote, and the only way to give him the franchise was to permit him to select his constituency.
Here we have a mail who was serving in the British army, who had never lived in Canada, and we told him that he could choose any constituency throughout the whole of Canada in which to vote. Further on the minister said:

Who is there who will stand up and say that British subjects who had sufficient interest in this country to come and join our armies and fight had not some right to say what should be the Government of this country during the war?
I could go on further and quote the remarks not only of the Minister of the Interior, but of a large number of members on both sides of the House, and particularly on the other side, but I think I have sufficiently explained my point, and I move in amendment:
That paragraph (g), clause 30, be amended by inserting, after the word " Canada '' in the 27th line, the words " Great Britain and the Allies."


Hugh Guthrie: I would like to ask my hon. friend what he has in mind. Has his proposed amendment any particular result ot is it academic? Does it refer to any people? If so, would he kindly let me understand something of his object?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: My object is simply this, that by this Act we disfranchise, or we can disfranchise, certain British subjects who have seen service in the Imperial army. Whether there is one or a hundred, or five hundred in this country, I do not care.


Hugh Guthrie: Are there any?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The minister has told me that he knows of two.


Hugh Guthrie: Those are not disqualified; they are qualified under this section.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Two Hindus?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, who fought in the Canadian army.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am quite sure that unless it he in British Columbia there are throughout the rest of the country a number of Hindu reservists who were called on and were ready to fight for the British flag at some place or other throughout the world.


Hugh Guthrie: It is possible, but I have been informed that it is not so.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The law is to meet a general case. The province of Ontario might at some time or other, and possibly will, if we are to believe the reports of its rapid Americanization, take some means to disfranchise the negroes. Some other province might disqualify other races on account of Their colour, religion or language. I see no reason why people who have fought for the Empire should be disqualified on account of any particular prejudice that may exist in any province of the Dominion. I pre-116 J
sume that British Columbia is the only province which has the Hindu. I have no wish to interfere with the people of British Columbia, but I am convinced that the people of British Columbia themselves, knowing them as I do to have 'been very staunch supporters of the war and everything concerned in it, would not wish to exclude British subjects who were members of the British army or to prevent them from exercising the franchise. If the minister wishes me to go further I will add at the end of the paragraph the words "nor otherwise duly qualified dependents of such .members of the forces." Then the mother of the dead Hindu British subject, of the dead Chinese British subject, and of the dead Japanese British subject would be entitled to vote, and their widows, too. If the minister wishes, I will do that. If numbers are all he wants, we might get a few more in.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is just as well that the committee should know what my hon. friend's views on the subject are. If the object of his motion is to open up the question of the Oriental vote in this country and to leave the door as wide open as possible, as I judged from his concluding remarks, I disagree entirely.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: No, I did not say that.


Hugh Guthrie: If my information is
correct, and I think it is, within the present month of April the legislature of British Columbia, has expressly refused to allow' even returned soldiers of Oriental origin to vote. That is the information that has come to me. There is a popular impression both in the House and outside that in some way or other the mere fact that a man is a British subject entitles him to vote. That is wholly a wrong impression. British citizenship carries with it no right to vote. So far as I know, citizenship in no country carries with it the right to vote. The right to vote is a conferred right in every case. A man born within the shadow of Westminster may come to Canada and yet not be able to vote in the province of Nova Scotia. A British subject who has resided in Canada five years cannot vote in Nova Scotia unless he has certain qualifications which the legislature of that province says shall attach before he can vote. Citizenship of itself carries no right to the franchise. A certain number of Orientals did come to this country on our western coast, and they were naturalized. There is a popular impression, more particularly in the East,

that citizenship alone gives them the right to vote. I have heard it argued in this House that you are breaking your contract with a man who has a naturalization certificate if you do not give him the right to vote. This Parliament says upon what terms men shall vote. It is so in the United States and every other civilized country. We attach certain conditions. We say in the first place:	You must have
been-so many years in the country; secondly, you must have attained such and such an age, and in some parts of Canada, you must also have a property qualification. These requirements must all be cdmplied with before a man can vote. No Oriental, whether he be Hindu, Japanese or Chinese, acquires the right to vote in this country simply by the fact of citizenship. The Hindu is a British-born subject just as much as any Canadian, but he acquires no right by obtaining his certificate unless he can comply with all the other requirements of our law. I thought myself that when the province of British Columbia passed an Act to disqualify Orientals from voting they were going to the full extent of their constitutional power, if not over-stepping it. In fact I was very much surprised when the legislation was upheld by the highest court in the realm. The Imperial Privy Council held that the question of the franchise to be enjoyed within the province was a matter falling entirely within provincial rights and jurisdiction under section 93 of the British North America Act. Subsection (1) of section 93 provides that each province may regulate matters concerning its own constitution. The Privy Council held that the right to regulate the provincial franchise was a provincial constitutional right, and that the legislature had authority to vary or alter the requirements as it saw fit. Consequently, the Privy Council upheld the right of the province of British Columbia to say that an Orientp.1 should not vote, notwithstanding that he was a British subject. A year or two afterwards, we know, the legislature of that province passed another law prohibiting British subjects of Oriental extraction or origin from working in the mines under certain conditions, on underground work, I think it was. That Act was set aside by the Privy Council as ultra vires of the powers of the legislature of British Columbia. To my mind there is a great anomaly in those two decisions, but very able text-book writers have sought to reconcile them and have done so apparently to their own satisfaction, and evi-
dently the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council were satisfied. Personally, I believe it is a matter of very, very refined reasoning to distinguish the principles upon which these two opposing judgments are based. However, the law as it stands to-day and as interpreted is to the effect that a province can regulate its own franchise and can deprive a person otherwise qualified as a British subject of his right to exercise the franchise in provincial elections.
Whether the exclusion of the Oriental is right or wrong, I am inclined to think there is a very radical difference between the races of the Orient and the races of this hemisphere. I believe there is a great amount of truth in Rudyard Kipling's verse:
East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.
The Oriental's ideas are different from ours; his training is different; his education is different; the habits and customs of the two people are different. I believe the greatest difference exists in regard to economic conditions, and that no doubt is the question which has caused all the trouble on our western coast. Their method of life is different from ours. They may be more industrious and more economical than we are. The labour question is at the bottom of the whole matter of the Oriental vote. The province of British Columbia has decreed in its wisdom that Orientals shall not vote on provincial affairs. We have merely carried out that provincial wish. I do not know that it is not somewhat anomalous for us to do so, but we have done it, and I believe that the proposal will come within the judgment of the House. We know, however, that certain portions of that Oriental community did serve with the Canadian forces in the war, and to that portion we are prepared to grant the franchise notwithstanding provincial disqualifications.


Ernest Lapointe: Is British Columbia
the only province in Canada that excludes Orientals from voting?


Hugh Guthrie: British Columbia excludes Chinese, Japanese and Hindus. I aan informed that in Saskatchewan only Chinese are excluded. Now, I think the House will readily agree that men of Oriental extraction who served in the Canadian military, naval or air forces should have a vote. I cannot believe from any information I have, or from any information which my hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. APRIL 29, 1920
Power) was able to give to the House, that there are any persons of Oriental extraction who served in the army of Great Britain or in the army of the Allies of Great Britain, and were otherwise qualified, who would be disqualified by this Act. An odd case might exist, but I have never heard of any. There is, however, just this difficulty. If you wish to extend this exception to the men who served in the armies of Great Britain and her Allies, Japan was an Ally, and a native of Japan who is living in British Columbia might have served in the army or navy of Japan, and under the amendment proposed by my hon. friend that man would have a right to vote. I do not think we are justified in going as far as that, because this amendment would not cover the case of men *who served in the army of the United 'States, which is not an allied but an associated power.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I will add "associated,"
right away.


Hugh Guthrie: I think my hon. friend
is rather exerting himself in an effort that is not going to get us anywhere. On academic and sentimental grounds I agree with him that the man who was good enough to fight our battles Is good enough to vote; we are together in principle and in sentiment so far as that goes. But I really think we are taking up too much time in matters that can have no practical result. There may be an odd man here or there who would be affected, but the result in any case is going to be very small. [DOT]


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I do not intend to follow
my hon. friend the minister into a discussion of the racial and colour question in British Cblumbia or anywhere else. I have no knowledge of those conditions in British Columbia or Saskatchewan, and I am inclined to agree that whatever the people of those provinces think is best for themselves should be given effect to by this House. But we have already made an exception in favour of Canadian soldiers, and I think we should make similar exception in favour of a large number of soldiers of a racial origin different from ourselves who served in the Imperial army. It is all very well for the hon. minister to say that to his knowledge there are very few men who would be affected, but to my mind that does not alter the situation one bit. Either we were right in exempting our Canadian soldiers, or we were wrong; and the treatment meted out to a Canadian Hindu soldier, to a Canadian Japanese, or to a Canadian Chinese, should equally well he meted out to the British Chinese, soldier, the British
Hindu, and the British Japanese. Standing on that broad ground, I say that the minister should not object to the insertion of the words whichT wish to add.
I agree with the minister that the status of a British subject does not necessarily qualify him as an elector. But under section 29 we know who is qualified as an. elector: he must be a British subject of the full age of twenty-one years and resident in Canada. The man to wham I refer will have been a British subject, will have attained the full age of .twenty-one years, and will have been a resident of Canada; his only disqualification will be a racial one. You have already lifted this racial disqualification for the man who has served in the Canadian forces, and I ask you to lift it for him who has served in the British forces. We have allowed member of our force (to vote who had no interest whatsoever in Canada, except that they wore a Canadian uniform, and we have established a precedent by granting to those not otherwise qualified but British subjects the right to vote, provided they wore a uniform. Are we going to take away from those duly qualified now the right to vote, even though they do wear the uniform? I have heard the hon. minister quote Kipling with regard to the East and the West, but we also might quote the author of the Barrack Room Ballads with regard to another point:
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, wait outside" ;
But it's "Special train for Atkins" when the trooper's on the tide,


Mr. STACEY:: On the surface there may appear to be a great deal in what the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Power) says. He has, however, given us the key to the situation when he states that he does not know the conditions in the Par West. If he were a citizen of the Pacific Province I am sure he would not have made his proposal. To use a mild word, Sir, that would be one of the most unfortunate amendments of the Franchise Act, and I dare not suggest what might be the outcome of such an amendment were the House to accept it. It is too absurd to be seriously considered.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Thank you.


Frank Bainard Stacey: I believe, with the minister, that the amendment is wrong in principle, and from our knowledge of the situation in the West, I am sure it would be a very unwise policy to adopt. The province of British Columbia has stated in very emphatic language its views on the matter of extending the franchise to Orientals. The

clause as framed goes as far, I believe, as it is safe or wise to go at the present juncture, and as the hon. gentleman, according to his own statement, does not really understand the position taken in the matter by British Columbia. I sincerely hope he will voluntarily withdraw his amendment and not ask the House even to express an opinion upon it by a vote.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I would like to hear from the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Stacey) why it is absurd to give any British soldier a vote, and why it is more absurd to give a vote to a British soldier who served in the Imperial army than it is to give it to a British soldier who served in the Canadian army, if they both have the same racial characteristics. It can be more absurd to give the vote to the man who served with a Canadian shoulder-strap on his tunic than to the man who wore a turban. So far as the hon. gentleman is concerned, if the opinion of British Columbia coincides with his, and if that opinion has nothing more to back it up than what he has just stated, I am heartily glad that I know nothing of the conditions in that province.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Mr. CROTHERS:: It seems to me that subsection 2 of section 30 is very unhappily worded. It is difficult to understand what the draftsman meant. In the first half of that subsection it is made an offence for a . man to vote or to procure any one else to vote knowing that he or the other person is not qualified to vote, and that offence is punishable upon summary conviction as in the Bill provided. Then, the latter part of the subsection says:
On the trial of any person accused of having contravened this section by voting

Not by procuring any one else to vote.
-with knowledge of his disqualification, nonqualification or incompetency, the burden of proof as to all matters material shall be upon such person and not upon the Crown.
A man is charged with having voted when he was not qualified to vote. He is brought before a magistrate. If he says nothing, he is guilty, because the burden is upon him of proving everything against himself as well as in favour of himself. First, he would have to prove that he had
10 p.m. voted, and to do that he would have to produce the ballot papers and the poll book. I am satisfied that this subsection does not express what the draftsman had in mind and I think it had better stand for further consideration.


Hugh Guthrie: I must thank my hon.
friend for having directed our attention to this clause. The Parliamentary Counsel has examined it and has pointed out that there is an error in it. After the word "in-eompeteney" in the 41st line there should be inserted the words "and upon proof that

the accused voted at such election/' and the word "other" should be inserted after the word "all' in the 42nd line.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: * Should not the words "or procuring any other person to vote be inserted after the word "voting" in the 40th line? I think it is intended to include both.


Hugh Guthrie: That might improve it. As a matter of fact, it might be better to strike out after the word "section" in the 40th line the words "by voting with knowledge of his disqualification, non-qualification or incompetency"; to insert in lieu thereof the words "and upon proof that the accused voted at such election, and to insert the word "other" after the word "all' in the 42nd line.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: In order to secure a conviction you still leave the burden upon the man accused to prove that he was not entitled to vote. The Crown establishes that he voted. If you stop there, there is no offence committed. Supposing the man says: "Well, I will just leave the matter where you left it." The man accused would still be required to prove bis own guilt by proving that he was disqualified from voting.


Hugh Guthrie: I see there are further difficulties in this clause, and it has evidently been improperly drafted. I think we shall let subclause 2 stand, because Mr. Gisborne's amendment does not meet the oase, and this might be a very important clause, particularly in regard to that provision w7hich permits men to be sworn in on election day for the purpose of voting.
Amendment withdrawn.


Mr. CALDER:: Might I say just a word with reference to this feature of this legislation? If the enumeration principle is carried into 'this Bill and finally adopted, very careful provisions must be miade so that men cannot come forward and swear in their votes on election day. You must surround that privilege, if it exists, with every possible restriction and safeguard. As I understand it, the last subclause of this clause is to .provide that where a man whose name is- not on the list comes forward on election day and swears in his vote knowing that he has not a vote, then the burden of proof must be placed upon him at the trial to show that he had a vote.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The burden of proof is on any voter, whether he is on the list or not.


James Alexander Calder: I am not quite so sure about that. There are other offences mentioned in the first part of this clause, and as regards them the burden of -proof is on the Crown but in the case of the man. who knows that he had net a vote and who comes forward and swears in his vote, as regards that particular offence the intention is to place the burden of proof on him.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: This is not confined to him at all; |t covers anybody.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to congratulate my hon. friend (Mr. Crothers) on his success in dealing with this clause. When this clause was under consideration on a former occasion, I took the very same objection as the hon. member has taken -and made a very strong argument. Of course, nothing good came out of that and I was wiped aside rwi'th a wave of the hand of the Minister of Militia.


Hugh Guthrie: This clause was never considered before.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I congratulate my hon. friend on having a better hearing than I had.


Hugh Guthrie: This clause was neveT considered before to-night.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I say that it was. Section stands.
On section 33-"when new lists of voters unnecessary:


Hugh Guthrie: There are some words left out here, and perhaps before considering the clause I had better have the clerical errors corrected. I move to amend clause 33 by striking out in the eighth line on page 24 the words "and to the revising officers;" by striking out in the tenth Mne on page 24 the word "print;" by striking out in 'the sixteenth line on page 24 the words "or revising officer;" and by inserting the word "rural" before the word "registrar" where the said word appears in the thirteenth and fifteenth lines on page 24.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That excludes registrars in cities.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: How -can the returning officer send a copy to each rural registrar if he has only three certified copies) Subclause 2 states that the Chief Electoral

Officer shall send three certified copies to the returning officer, and there may be twenty-five rural registrars.


Hugh Guthrie: I move thalt clause 33 [DOT] be taken up, subclause by subclause and I think my hon. friend will see the bearing of this then.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 33, subsection (1)-when new lists of voters unnecessary:
Hugh Guthrie: This subsection provides that it shall not be necessary, "except as otherwise provided in this section," to prepare new lists of voters for any election in any district when there has been in that electoral district a previous election for which the lists of voters prepared are of record in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and there is an interval of less than twelve months between the dates of the writs for the two elections. I may point out that in subsection (3) the word "list" in line twelve should be in the plural.


James Hamilton Ross: Before the minister goes any futher, may I suggest that as this section is dependent on section 32 it should stand?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.
Section stands.
On section 34-additional polling stations when more than 300 electors in a polling division:


Hugh Guthrie: There are some errors in this section which I desire to correct. In line 47 on page 24 of the Bill after the words "section thirty-two" the following words should be inserted "or by rule five of schedule B of said section"; and in line 32 after the word "registrar" there should be inserted the words "or revising officer." These, I think, are the only changes, and I move that the section be amended accordingly.


Mr. PARDEE:: In line 31 it is provided: "The returning officer shall in such case direct the registrar to prepare .	. . from
the lists of voters ... a separate list." Should that not be the Chief Electoral Officer instead of the returning officer?


Hugh Guthrie: I think that is the duty of the returning officer.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: If the Chief Electoral Officer in the first part of the section is authorized to direct the returning officer to prepare additional polling stations, why should he not also direct the returning officer to prepare this list?


Hugh Guthrie: In the first instance the returning officer determines the question.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: On the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer, the Chief Electoral Officer authorizes or directs the returning officer.


Hugh Guthrie: The Chief Electoral
Officer directs the returning officer, as regards the providing of additional polling stations only in cases where he sees fit; but where the polling division contains more than 300 voters the returning officer is bound to provide such stations. The clause directs that he "shall" do so.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Why is the [DOT] number 300 fixed?


Hugh Guthrie: Because it is considered a reasonable number.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: It takes a long time for electors to record their votes, and I should imagine that 250 would be a reasonable number to fix as the maximum for a polling division. My hon. friend knows that a large number of women will exercise the franchise for the first time in the next election, and as they will not be as adept at voting as men, it will take a good deal of time for them to cast their votes.
Mr. BElLAND : And certain courtesies will have to be shown them.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Exactly, and as they cannot be stampeded it is only natural to expect that a good deal of time will be required. If we intend to crowd in forty or fifty voters in an hour some very fast work will have to be done by the deputy returning officer and the officials at the polls. It is only for the sake of convenience that I make this suggestion.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that 300 is a reasonable number. We desire to keep down the number of officials as far as possible, and the Act as it is will be fairly expensive. I do not think there is any difficulty in polling 200 votes in a division. There may be odd hours in the day when there is a rush, but it is slow work to poll only 200 votes. The polls are open from six in the forenoon until six at night, a matter of twelve hours.


Mr. LEGER:: I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Power). From experience I know that it is a matter of difficulty for a great many voters to go to thS polls early in the day, and there is generally a considerable rush towards the close of the day. I therefore think that 250 would be a sufficient number of electors for any polling division, es-

pecially in view of the extra time which it will take to accommodate the ladies.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: This gives roughly one vote polled every two and a half minutes. It is true this was under the old Act; but under the old Act in certain portions of the country the lists were old and we could reasonably suppose that a large number of those whose names were on the list were dead or absent or otherwise could not vote. But the lists here are essentially up-to-date.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Hear, hear.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If we were going into a discussion of that I think that perhaps we would be able to convince the minister that the lists are too much up-to-date. In any case we can reasonably suppose that the whole 300 who are on the list will wish to vote, and as I have said this means a vote polled every two and a half minutes.
I submit that two and a half minutes per person is not sufficient. It would be very easy for an evil-disposed deputy returning officer, aided by an evil-disposed election agent, to block a poll for the last two or two and a half hours. I do not know whether the minister has ever heard of the procedure of blocking the poll.


Hugh Guthrie: Never.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: As I understand it happens in the best regulated families.


Hugh Guthrie: You cannot block them in Ontario.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If the minister would go to some other provinces in Canada he could, if he wished, learn a great deal in regard to the very ingenious procedure which they have in order to manipulate elections. There is no doubt it can be done. It should be very easy to say and amend this clause to fix the number at 250 voters.


Jean-Joseph Denis: It is provided in line 35 that these lists shall be made in alphabetical order, and it is provided further that when there are two polls in one polling subdivision one list shall proceed from (a) to (k) or from (1) to (r) and so on. That is quite proper, but I would like to have this point elicited at once: How will a married woman's name be entered on the voters' lists?


Hugh Guthrie: Section 32 provides for that.


Jean-Joseph Denis: It does not provide how her name shall be entered.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, with a "W" after it.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The "W" will indicate that she is a married woman?


Hugh Guthrie: No. Paragraph (a) of Rule 6, page 18 says:
Such list shall show the names thereon alphabetically arranged according to surnames-
And so on.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Mary Smith is married to Edward Hall,-how will Mary Smith's name be entered on the list? Will it be Mrs. Edward Hall; will it be Mrs. Mary Smith Hall, which is a form adopted sometimes; will it be Mrs. Mary Hall; will it be Mrs. Mary Smith, or will it be Mrs. Mary Smith wife of Edward Hall? It could be designated on the list in five different ways which would change the alphabetical order.
I would ask the minister whether the way in which a married woman will be designated on the list is provided for anywhere in the Act?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. There is provision made for it, although the provision might have to be made clearer in section 32. The list is to be prepared under subsection (a) of rule 6, page 18. The list itself is to be prepared and completed in accordance with form ,(k'), page 82. The form contains spaces for "name," "occupation or addition" and "residence". The form prescribed in the case of a single woman is: "Miss Mary Baker" and in that of a married woman "Mrs. Ann Dow". "W" follows t'he name of each and also "spinster" or "married woman" or "widow". That is the form to be followed under section 32. But I think we are wasting time in considering section 32 as I am under a promise not to discuss it to-night.


Jean-Joseph Denis: On page 82, form 4, we see "Mrs. Ann Dow". Is this lady's maiden name Dow, or is Dow the name of her husband?


Hugh Guthrie: Why?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Because the law says that a married woman shall take the surname of her husband.


Ernest Lapointe: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) is right, but the question raised by my hon. friend (Mr. Denis) is of some importance. I know that in my election in Quebec East last fall the registrar had entered the maiden name of women with the annotation "wife of" such and

such a man. The husband and wife, when coming to poll their votes, had to register their votes at separate polls on account of that arrangement. That was wrong.


Hugh Guthrie: When we again come to section 32 we can make that clear. .


Lucien Cannon: That is the legal way of designating married women in our province according to the code of civil procedure.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not the legal way under the statutes of this Parliament.


Lucien Cannon: In our province we designate a married woman by her maiden name and put "wife of so and so".


Hugh Guthrie: Under the Federal law a woman takes the name of her husband.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 35-who shall not be appointed election officers:


Hugh Guthrie: There is one word to be added, although it is not very important. I move to amend clause 35 by inserting the word "registrar" after the words "returning officer" in the second line of the said clause.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 36-writ of election, indexed copies of this Act, blank poll books and forms, to be sent to returning officer :
Hugh Guthrie: The Chief Electojal Officer, or Parliamentary Counsel, has suggested an amendment there in reference to the franking privilege. It should be granted to the Chief Electoral Officer as he will have a good deal of matter to send out by mail just at the time of the election. I beg to move:
All letters or mailable matter addressed to the Chief Electoral Officer, at Ottawa, or sent by the said Chief Electoral Officer, from Ottawa, shall be free of Canadian postage under such regulations as the Postmaster General shall prescribe.
This amendment was prepared by the Post Office authorities.
Amendment agreed to and section as amended agreed to.
_ Oo section 37-proclamation by returning officer mailed to postmasters:


Mr. TURGEON:: When this section was under consideration before, I asked that the proclamations be printed in both French and English not only in the province of Quebec and Manitoba, but in all the pro-

vinces. This is a bilingual country and we may as well recognize that fact at once. We should not allow the small additional expenditure that would be involved to stand in the way. In this year of billions we need not consider a few hundred dollars if the expenditure is to satisfy the whole people of Canada. It would not be necessary or advisable, I think, to have the proclamations in both languages in British Columbia at the present time, but I think it should be done in all the other provinces. Ontario has a French population of nearly 300,000, one-third of the population of New Brunswick is French, and in some districts of that province there are only one or two English families. In the whole Maritime Provinces there will be a population by the next census of 180,000 French-speaking people. I trust the minister will have the proclamations printed in both languages for all the provinces except British Columbia. I mentioned this when the clause was under consideration before, and I hope the minister is prepared to-night to accept my suggestion. The clause could be so worded as to leave it to the discretion of the returning officer in English-speaking centres where there were only a few French residents, to decide whether the proclamations were required in both languages.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I wish to endorse the
suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Turgeon). During the last election I was approached by several of the officers in my constituency to help them translate their instructions from English into French, so that they could understand their duties on polling day. A few days before polling day I had to send certain parties from one poll to another in order to help the officers holding the polls to understand their instructions, which were printed in the English language. In my constituency there are several polls where you will find not more than one or two English families. Everything official is done more or less in the French language and has to be translated into English, and this it is very difficult for some of them to do. The returning officer appointed for my constituency at the last election could not read French, and consequently he had great difficulty in giving the proper instructions to the different officers at the polls throughout the constituency. I trust that the minister will accept the suggestion of my hon. friend to have the proclamations printed in both languages.


Auguste Théophile Léger: I have very much pleasure indeed in supporting the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Turgeon). I spoke on this

question when the clause was under consideration a few nights ago. There are a great many districts in the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island where the population is mostly all French. In the county I have the honour to represent, three-quarters of the population are French-speaking, and in a great many parishes of the county there are no English-speaking people at all. I therefore think it only right that the proclamation should be printed in both languages so that the electors will know what they mean. Women now have the right to vote, and they should know what is going on. Not many of them in our part of the country can read English, but they can read French, and it would be very convenient to them and the public generally to have these proclamations printed in French as well as English. The expense would not be very great. We could leave it to the discretion of the returning officers to decide whether proclamations in both languages were required at certain polls.


Mr. PROULX:: I presume this clause applies to Quebec and Manitoba because the French language is by the constitution of the British North America Act and by the Manitoba Act official in the courts of these provinces. Since these Acts were passed there has been a large increase in the French population in other provinces, particularly in Ontario and some of the Maritime Provinces. In some constituencies of Ontario a large majority of the population is French-speaking, so I think tlm Bill should be amended to provide for the issue of the proclamation in both languages in constituencies where there is a considerable French-speaking population. Power could be given to the Chief Electoral Officer to instruct the returning officer to issue the proclamations in both languages.


Hugh Guthrie: This is one of the
clauses that have received very earnest consideration from the Government. Personally I sympathize very much with hon. members who have spoken of the difficulties which arise in various parts of the province of New Brunswick, and perhaps other parts of the Dominion, from the fact that our people are not so well educated as to be masters of both French and English. It would be far better for us all if we were; unfortunately we are not. I think we all realize that the language question has heretofore excited a marked difference of opinion, and undoubtedly the Government has acted wisely in deciding to abide by the established rule. The two provinces of
Quebec and Manitoba are specially mentioned in this section and in another section, but the reason is that there are constitutional questions in both these provinces in regard to the right to use the French language which do not exist in the other provinces. There may be some slight inconvenience in some parts of the country by reason of the fact that the clause is not more extensive in its operation, but I think there are rights on both sides in respect to this question, and it is far wiser and safer for the Government to follow well-known and approved paths than to enter upon any new ventures of a very controversial nature on the matter of convenience in elections.


Auguste Théophile Léger: Although this clause may
have been in force for a long time, I think some changes are now due. Our population has increased considerably not only in New Brunswick but in several other of our provinces, and therefore I think we must change our law to accommodate our people.
I for one am sorry that all our people cannot read and speak the English language, and although no doubt with the spread of education our young people do not labour under that disadvantage, their parents have not had the same opportunities, and they should be considered in a matter of this kind. I appeal to the Government to make the change now; it would not hurt anybody, the expenditure would not amount to anything, and it would satisfy a great many people throughout the country.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There is an old saying
that if you give a man an inch he wants a mile.


Mr. LBGER:: I do not want a mile, I
only want what is just and right.


Jacques Bureau: You conclude from that to give him nothing?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No. I mean there is
nothing in the British North America Act that would warrant inserting in this Bill authority to use the French language in Manitoba.


Edmond Proulx: There is that authority
in the Manitoba Act.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No.


Jacques Bureau: It is all through the
Dominion, and this is Dominion legislation.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No. Section 133 of the
British North America Act defines the matter pretty well.


Mr. MIOHAUD:: The regulations in connection with this Bill are supposed to be written in both French and English.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No.


Pius Michaud: Why not? The official languages are French and English.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: No. The French language cannot be imposed upon any province except there is' legal right to impose it. Section 23 of the Manitoba Act of 1870 defines the rights to the use of the French language in Manitoba:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the Houses of the Legislature, and both those languages shall be used in the respective Records and Journals of those Houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person, or in any pleading or process, in or issuing from any court of Canada established under the British North America Act, 1867, or in or from all or any of the courts of the provinces. The Acts of the Legislature shall be printed and published in both those languages.
That I conceive, Mr. Chairman, to constitute the limits of that right. No possible right can arise that exceeds the express words of the statute. I do not think that the hon. member for Kent, N.B. (Mr. Leger) contends that there is any right, constitutional or otherwise, to use the French language in his province. As I understand the history of this section, it was put in our election law many years ago by -Sir John Macdonald's government, and was allowed to remain there by the government of Sir-Wilfrid Laurier, the limitations apparently being acceded to, as were the concessions. This section does not abrogate any of the rights that were heretofore confirmed or granted, but the moment this Bill comes before the House hon. gentlemen seek to obtain similar privileges or concessions in respect to other portions of the Dominion.


Pius Michaud: Is there anything wrong in doing so?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not say there is
very much wrong in doing so, but there is no reason why a wrong should be granted either as of right or of grace.


Lucien Cannon: Can a wrong be granted as a right?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: My hon. friend, being
Irish, will probably get that through his brain sometime after he quiets down from the disturbing effects of this debate.


Lucien Cannon: That will be just as soon as the hon. gentleman himself gets it through his brain.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The point is, the right established by that section. This Parliament has no constitutional right to go any further in legislation of this kind. As hon. 
members are aware, the British North America Act defines the rights of this Parliament. I have not section 133 of that Act at hand, but it limits the use of the French language as an official language to the province and the Legislature of Quebec, to the Dominion House of Commons, and to all Federal courts established by the Dominion Government, namely, the Supreme Court and the Exchequer Court.
I do not raise this question for the purpose of sowing seeds of discord or for depriving' any section of our people of what might seem to them to be a special privilege; but merely to point out to the hon. member for Kent, N.B., that he presumes that such a right exists in his province. I do not think we should let those presumptions go unchallenged when we know the law is dead against them; and as the law has been in this form for so many years I see no reason why it should be changed now.


Auguste Théophile Léger: I do not think -it is fair to say that if the Government gives us an inch we want a mile. All the people of the country, whether they are French, English, Irish or any other nationality, are entitled to their rights. Rules and regulations should be -adjusted to meet the -growth of the country, and I do not see that there should be any exception in this case. The people of the French race speak French and it -is of no use to try to prevent them from doing so; life is too short to make that worth while. Likewise the people of the English race speak English, and it is useless for the French people to try to prevent them from speaking English. We have to take the situation as it stands, and I believe that the Government will be generous enough to allow the minority in any province the rights to which -they are entitled. I am not asking for favours; I am asking only for what is a matter of right to Frenchspeaking people.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend (Mr. Morphy) has read section 133 of the British North America Act-.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I did not read it; I
quoted it from memory.


Jacques Bureau: Well, I will read it. My hon. friend's memory is very good because he used the exact words of the section, and I want to use those very words against him. Section 133 reads:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the Houses of the Parliament of Canada and of the Houses of the Legislature of Quebec; and

both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those Houses.
The records and proceedings in connection with an election are returned to the Chief Electoral Officer and form part of the records of this Parliament. Clause 75 of the Rill provides that the Chief Electoral Officer shall keep these papers in his possession for at least one year, and, if the election is contested, for one year after the termination of such contestation. The Chief Electoral Officer cannot move an inch without the authority of this Parliament. If, therefore, these papers are records of this House, it is the duty of the returning officer to use both languages. Further, it is provided by section 37 that certain papers shall be issued "in the English language only in other electoral districts" than those in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba. Why should there be such a provision if the right to have these records printed in the French language is not recognized? I repeat that these papers form part of the records of this House, and that the records of this House must be kept in both languages; therefore my hon. friend from New Brunswick (Mr. Leger) asks for a right, not a favour. Hon. gentlemen say that when we get an inch we want a mile, but the fact is that they are depriving us of something we are entitled to.


William Cameron Edwards: How does this clause
compare with the section of the Act under which the election of 1911 was conducted?


Jacques Bureau: I have not compared them, but the Acting Solicitor General says that they are the same, and I am willing to take his word for it. But I understand that this Act is supposed to be an improvement on the old Act.


William Cameron Edwards: Then in what respect
does.this section deprive any portion of the people of any right that they formerly possessed?


Jacques Bureau: That is not the point. If we have been deprived of any right it should be restored to us. Two blacks do not make a white, nor two evils a right. The member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) seems to think that he is extending great favours to us, whereas he is really depriving us of rights to which we are entitled. Relying on the British North America Act, he argues that we are not entitled to certain rights; I say that we are
11 p.m. entitled to them under that veTy Act. The fact that the restriction was in the old Act makes no difference.
I care not whether it was put there by Liberals or Conservatives. I say, where the law is good, do not change it, but where it can be improved, we are entitled to offer criticisms and suggestions. We hate to be told when we make a suggestion that it is hollow, or that when we speak it is only mockery. We do not want to be treated flippantly and told that favours are being extended to us when we complain that we are being deprived of some of our rights.


William Cameron Edwards: I have not been able to observe in the discussion of this clause a disposition on the part of any hon. member which would warrant the remarks which my hon. friend (Mr. Bureau) has just made.
I am told that this section is worded precisely the same as the sections which have governed this matter for years. Now, let us go no further back than 1911. Who was re- . sponsible for the framing of the Act at that time? The late Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. If under that Act any of the people were deprived of their rights, the member for Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Mr. Bureau) and other hon. gentlemen had an opportunity to place their views before the then Prime Minister and to have the Act so .amended as to grant them the rights which they now claim under the constitution.
I think I may take it pretty well for granted that if the argument of these hon. gentlemen was good, that they were entitled under the constitution to any other rights than they have under this clause and than they have had under the section of which this is an exact copy, they would have put up their claims before this and their claims would have been recognized. Therefore, I take it that is pretty conclusive proof that they had no such constitutional right. There are a number of Freneh-Cana-dians in Ontario and in a number of the other provinces. Hon. gentlemen claim that the two languages should be recognized in every province of the Dominion; but in the western provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan, there are people of other races, speaking other languages, who are more numerous than are the French-Canadians in those provinces. Should we recognize their claim that they cannot read the proclamation which is put up in English and say that, therefore, it should be put up in German, Polish, Austrian, and several other languages? Oh, no; hon. gentlemen will say that their language stands on a different plane. So it does in certain parts and in certain records

of the country; but from the constitutional standpoint, it does not stand on any different plane whatever except in those provinces which have been specifically mentioned, and hon. gentlemen are asking for something to which they are not entitled. In New Brunswick, where there are a number of French-Canadians, when an election came on, the proclamation was put up in the English language and they managed to get along with that ten, fifteen, twenty years ago. If they could do that, they should be able to get along better to-day - than twenty years ago, because if the schools of New Brunswick have been conducted along proper lines, every one of the electors of the younger generation in that province should be able to speak or read the English language. These hon. gentlemen will not claim that they have any right? to bilingual schools in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. If they have not been endeavouring in those provinces to keep their children away from the English schools and if they have not been running schools of their own, their children, now grown up to manhood and voting age, should be able to read any proclamation issued in the English language. I see no reason from a constitutional standpoint why this clause should be changed and made to read differently from the way in which it has read in past years. If there were any constitutional right, I believe the section would have been changed long ago, and the fact that it was not changed seems to indicate that the late Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier felt that there was no constitutional right on which to base a change of that section and'consequently he left it as it was and as it is now.


Pius Michaud: Surely my hon. friend has no objection to the proclamations and pther documents relating to an election being printed in French so that they might be better understood?


William Cameron Edwards: Would my hon. friend raise any objection to changing this clause so as to make it compulsory for the proclamation To be printed in forty or fifty languages throughout the western part of the country?


Pius Michaud: That is not the question at all.
Mr. EDW1ARDS: I am asking my hon. triend a question. I answered my hon. friend's question before by stating that there was no constitutional right, as I understand it, for printing the proclamation [Mr. Edwards. 3
in the two languages other than where is mentioned in this clause, and I doubt very much whether there is a constitutional right to printing it in two languages in 'Manitoba.
Mr. LEMiIEUX: May I recall to my hon. friend that some years ago the Indians of Canada were enfranchised, and at that time the proclamation was published in the Indian language in the county of Haldimand?
Mr. LElGER: il am surprised to hear my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards), in order to justify his contention that the proclamation should not be printed in the French language, argue that in 1911, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power, this change was not made. Many things were not done at that time which should be done now, and perhaps at that time no one asked for this change. It is nine years since 1911 and many changes have taken place in Canada. We have had a war since then which has made many changes. In 1911 the cost of living was low whereas to-day it is almost as high as it can possibly go. I do not see much force in my hon. friend's arguments when he says: Why was this not done when the Liberal party was in power? Every year the laws of the country, are amended to a certain extent. Why, then, cannot this law be amended the same as any other law? I believe the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) is willing to make this change notwithstanding the argument put forward oy my hon. friend.


William Cameron Edwards: Does my hon. friend
think that the minister would have the right, under the constitution, to order the proclamations printed, let us say, in Manitoba or Saskatchewan, in English and Hungarian, in English and Austrian, in English and Polish, in English and Italian, or in English and several other languages?


Auguste Théophile Léger: That is no argument. The hon. member knows perfectly well there are two official languages in the Dominion of Canada. Why then does he bring in the question of other languages in order to try to dodge the point? I do not think that is any fair argument for an hon. member to make. We have the two official languages in this House and throughout the country. That being the case, to ask whether we would be willing that the proclamation should be printed in fifty languages is childish argument.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 
Mr. TTJRGEON:: I was surprised at the remarks of my hon. friend from Perth (Mr. Morphy) who possesses a commendable knowledge of the French language and who greets me every morning and holds a friendly conversation with me in that tongue. I did not expect that he would give me the cold shoulder in connection with this proposal I have made; I expected quite the opposite from him. I see no reason for any comparison between the French language and German or Austrian or any other foreign language. There are only two official languages in this country, English and French, and what else are we doing in this Parliament if not recognizing the fact that Canada is a bilingual country? I am not an extremist by any means, and I never use any extreme arguments; but I can say without the least fear of being accused of exaggeration that the province of New Brunswick, so far as harmony between its French-speaking and Englishspeaking people is concerned, is a model to the whole of Canada. The French constitute one-third of the population of that province, and if the amendment which I move were accepted by this House it would afford additional grounds for the admiration which the people of my race in the province from which I come have for the British Crown and British institutions. Let me say that we are inspired in our devotion to the Mother Country not so much by the cries of Ontario as by the knowledge that we can rely on British justice for our rights in the future

those rights may be delayed, but they will not be denied. Things have been improving in Canada since Confederation, and to-day we are preparing a new law which will have a far-reaching effect on our political life. Why not therefore endeavour to make it as perfect as possible? This is a time when people are aiming at efficiency and perfection since the destruction which the war has wrought, and I think the present is a most appropriate occasion for the adoption of such an improvement in legislation of this kind as I am now proposing. By the Constitution of Canada we have two official languages in this country. Is there any reason, therefore, why this amendment should not be accepted? The question of expense which might be involved ought not to weigh in the consideration of this matter. Expenditures are after all of no account when the happiness, both present and future, of the people of this country is at stake. We must consider the future harmony which should exist in this country, and if this amendment were adopted it would make for a vast improvement in the relations that exist between the French and English elements in our population. I am not asking for any privilege for foreign people. Any immigrant not of English or French origin coming to Canada is supposed to have a general knowledge of the laws of this country, and he comes here well aware that there are only two languages,which are officially recognized. He must therefore make up his mind to adapt himself to this condition, and I am sure that if the people of the country were encouraged to learn both French and English there would be a great improvement in their social relations. If there were the same amicable intercourse between the French and English people of the upper provinces as there is between the two races in the province of New Brunswick there would be no lurking suspicions in the minds of either class. In my province Protestant and Catholic walk together on their way to their respective churches and part at the corner with the best feelings toward one another, and this is the spirit which I should like to see exist throughout this fair Dominion. If the Government could realize what a great step this amendment would be towards better harmony and good-will in the country, I cannot help thinking that they would-be inclined to accept it. In the province of British Columbia the French-speaking population is practically nil, and I would not ask that proclamations should be issued in both languages there. In New Brunswick we also have constituencies where there are no French people, and in those places it would not be necessary to have the proclamations printed in French. But in every district where there are any num-

ber of French people I certainly think that the proclamations should be printed in both languages. My hon. friends opposite know sufficient of human nature to realize that this amendment if adopted would be regarded as evidence of a spirit of conciliation on their part. Now that we are making a new franchise law let us see to it that it contains every provision that will be acceptable to the people as a whole. I now move that section 37 subsection (1) be amended to read as follows:
Within two days after the receipt of the writ of election the returning officer shall, by a proclamation in form L issued under his hand in the English and French languages and mailed one copy at least to the various postmasters of the post offices within his electoral district.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: I rise to add a few words to the argument made by my hon. friend from Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Mr. Bureau). The hon. member cited section 133 of the British Nortih America Act, which provides that both languages shall be used in respect of the records and of the Journals of the Houses. I believe he has stated rightly that the proclamation of the returning officer constitutes a part of the records and that these records should be made in both languages. But, I shall go further. Section 133 says:
The Acts of the Parliament of Canada and of the Legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
It seems to me that the forms that generally accompany an Act and are contained in the schedule form part of the Act. Section 37 of the Bill says:
Within two days after the receipt of the writ of election the returning officers shall, by a proclamation in form L-
And so on. If I read form L, page 86, in connection with this Act, I find the proclamation itself in French in the French version and as section 133 of the British North America Act says'that the Act shall be printed and published in both languages, it seems to me that it applies to the forms. They shall be printed in both languages, the Act says, but they shall also be published. It does not mean that they shall only be published in this House or in Parliament, but it means that publication will be made wherever the Act is applied. I believe this is another argument in favour of the constitutional right. But even if we were not standing on firm ground regarding the constitutional right, although I believe we are, the right hon. the Acting Prime Miniser (Sir George Foster) has been preaching harmony and the bonne entente between the two races,

and I think if he had been here to-night he would have got up and chastised the ho-n. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) for denying us our rights, thus preventing the bonne entente between the different races in Canada. I do not believe I have anything else to add although I would like to allay the fears of my hon. friend from North Perth by- telling him that we do not ask that this proclamation should be printed and published in Parisian French but simply in good Canadian French.


Mr. DAVIS:: Mr. Chairman, while listening to what has been said on this question, I would preface what I have to say by remarking that I do not agree with the constitutional claim that is made by the speakers on the Opposition aide as to their rights in this case. Neither do I .agree with the extent to which the amendment goes; that is that French .should be used in all the provinces. But, realizing as I do that we are trying here to make .a fair Act, I do think that we might agree to a proposition of this kind because we will always have, before the election, the census returns showing those constituencies wherein there is a large French vote. Recognizing, what .we all recognize, that the French tongue has a place in this land beyond all other languages outside of the English language I think we might, where there is a large proportion of French speaking people, grant the right of requiring that the proclamation should be published in the French as well as the English tongue. That would apply to a part of the province of New Brunswick; probably, to parts of the province of Saskatchewan; certainly to parts of .the province of Manitoba, and certainly to parts of the province of Ontario. Let me add, in regard to this- because as politicians or members of Parliament, we always have to guard ourselves about our statements-I 'think I have only 240 French-speaking people altogether in my constituency, which means so small a vote that I would not strengthen myself in the constituency by appealing to it to 'the disregard of others. But I am speaking of what is fair under this law.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I had felt that I would not be waiting in v.aiin to hear some authorized voice from the other side of 'the House in response to the request-the almost pathetic request-made to the committee by the 'three hon. members from New Brunswick. When this clause first came under consideration the hon. member foT Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) and his two hon. colleagues from

New Brunswick represented to the committee that in their respective constituencies, as in a number of other constituencies in the province of New Brunswick, there were a large number of (Canadian citizens not conversant with the English language. They have therefore, in a very moderate tone indeed, requested the minister to consider thedr proposition. Up to the present moment, although the request has been repeated oftentimes on this side of the House no horn, gentleman on the other side has judged it proper to express his acquiescence.
I was extremely sorry to hear the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy)-a personal friend of mine, I hope,-and also my hon. friend the member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards). They have sought refuge, as an excuse for their opinion, (behind the constitution. I would not like to press the claim put forth by my hon. friends from New (Brunswick on the exclusive ground of the British North America Act but if you bear in mind that the proclamation for the federal election is an its nature and of necessity a federal document you must at the same time admit that it should be published in both languages. The constitutional point has been made quite strongly by my hon. friend from Three Rivers and St. Maurice (Mr. Bureau) and has been accentuated, and properly accentuated, by my hon. friend from Chambly and Ver-cheres (Mr. Arehambault). Is it denied that it is a federal document? The hon. member for North Perth, I think, asked the question whether it would be proper, for instance, to print the proclamation in French in an English or an almost entirely English province.
Mr. (MORPHY: No, I did not ask that.
Mr. BEtLAND:	Well, something to that
effect. The hon. member for Frontenac thought that in a province where the large majority was English it would not be proper to print the proclamation in French. It is not a provincial document, I must repeat; it is a federal document which is printed, and published by the authority of a federal officer, whose existence we provide for in the present Act. Let us suppose for one moment that there is no strictly constitutional right for the printing of the proclamation in both languages. Here is a country where there are mainly two great races, the English and the French, the French being in a large majority in one of the provinces and being a very small minority in Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, (Saskatchewan and Alberta. A Franchise Bill is brought down for the 117
consideration of this House, and therein it is provided that the proclamation shall be printed in French in. two of the provinces only. The ground taken is that the old Act so provided. What of it? Have not the conditions changed? Who can say that there are no more Canadians of the French tongue in New Brunswick to-day than there were fifteen years ago? And the same thing applies to Ontario and Saskatchewan, and perhaps some of the other provinces. The only reason that is given for imposing this clause to-day is that the old Act provided that the proclamation should be printed in both languages in two provinces only.
What do we say? We say that while no complaint was laid before Parliament before, to-day, one is presented in a most appealing manner by my hon. friend (Mr. Turgeon) and his two colleagues from New Brunswick. What do they ask? They state first to the House: We have in our province a number of Canadian citizens who are not conversant with the English language; they cannot read the proclamation in English; and we therefore ask, we beg of you, that in these districts, populated largely by French Canadians, the proclamation shall be printed in both languages. The only ground on which that request could be refused, not being unconstitutional, would be the ground of economy. What economy could be effected by printing a proclamation in only one language? Only a trifle, at most. I expected, and I say so candidly and frankly, that the suggestion would be accepted immediately. What does my hon. friend (Mr. Turgeon) ask for? What has he claimed? True, his amendment as you read it would mean the printing of the proclamation in both languages in all of the provinces, but if I heard his remarks aright, he said:	Leave it to the
discretion of the -Chief Electoral Officer to decide outside of Quebec and Manitoba in what electoral districts the proclamation shall be printed in both languages. He does not ask the exclusively English-speaking districts of Ontario or the West or the Maritime Provinces to read the proclamation in French. No, he does not go as far as that. What he asks is most reasonable. Present to the electors, he says, who are not conversant with the English languages in other provinces of the Dominion a proclamation that they can read if they are French-speaking citizens. The question was asked by my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards). Would you print the proclamation



in ten, twenty, thirty or forty different languages for the western provinces? That question has already been answered.


William Cameron Edwards: I should like to hear my hon. friend answer it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: My hon. friend will not deny that the French language stands in a position by itself in Canada, outside, of course, the English language.


William Cameron Edwards: [DOT] Silence on my part would mean acquiescence, and I do not want my hon. friend to think that I acquiesce in his statement as he puts it, because I certainly do not. I recognize, just as well as my hon. friend or any other hon. member of this House, that by the Constitution the French language is given a different position from every other language in this country except English. The position occupied by the French language is clearly set down in the constitution. That is what I claim, and I claim that the French language has been recognized according to the Contitution of the country so far as the Constitution warrants. From the constitutional standpoint I want to tell my hon. friend that I do not appreciate that the French language has any different status from any other language out in the West or in any other part, so far as this amendment is concerned. You may ask for it on sentimental grounds, if you like.


Henri Sévérin Béland: From the constitutional
standpoint I want to take clear issue with my hon. friend. The French language is officially recognized in the British North America Act. Outside of the English language is there any other language except French mentioned in the British North America Act?


William Cameron Edwards: That is all right, I recognize that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: That does not agree with what my hon. friend contends. He contends that the French language has no different standing in Canada from the Austrian language.


William Cameron Edwards: I did not contend anything of the kind.


Henri Sévérin Béland: By implication.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not think my hon. friend would intentionally misrepresent me, but he is misrepresenting me. I have read the British North America Act and I know the rights to the use of the French language in this House. I know that it has equal rights with the English 
language in this House and in the courts, and so on, and that no other language has that right. My hon. friend is not representing me fairly when he makes me say that I do not recognize the French language as occupying any different position from any other language in this country. I have recognized that.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I am most happy that my hon. friend has now admitted that the French language enjoys in Canada a different position from other foreign languages.


William Cameron Edwards: I have never said otherwise.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understood my hon.
friend to claim that the French language had no different standing in Canada from other foreign languages. He asked a question of some hon. gentlemen on this side, " Would you stand, then, for the printing of the proclamation in forty or fifty different languages in the West?" In answer to that question, I do not stand for the printing of the proclamations in forty or fifty different languages, but I claim that, if not absolutely in accordance with the strict provisions of the constitution, it would be only British fair play in view of history, and in view of the constitution as it stands as regards Quebec and Manitoba, to say to the French-speaking sections of this country: When you are called upon to register your vote in a general election you will be able to read the proclamation in your own language if you are a Frenchman, because you were the pioneers in this country, and with us framed Confederation.
In view of what happened at the opening of this session, in view of the magnificent speech delivered in French by the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster), and the subsequent speech he made, which was one of the finest appeals I ever heard from the mouth of any hon. gentleman of this House, in favour of harmony and bonne entente, I would expect that this request would be immediately granted. In New Brunswick, in Nova Scotia, in Ontario, and in some of the western provinces there are old folk who had no opportunity to learn English. Why should you deprive them of the privilege of reading in French the proclamation of a general election? And you cannot be condemned for granting them that privilege-certainly not on constitutional grounds. You may say: ''The constitution does not force me to grant it." But no hon. gentleman, .1 submit, can state that you are precluded by the constitution from doing so; such a con-

tention would not hold. You can grant this privilege. It has been asked for by the representatives of large French-speaking sections, and I hope my hon. friend will see his way clear to accept, not necessarily the amendment suggested by my hon. friend, but an amendment providing that m sections where the French language is largely used, in whatever province it may be, the proclamation shall be printed both in English and in French. This is a reasonable request. I do not believe that I have ever pressed in this House a request that was not absolutely reasonable. My hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon)- whom all hon. members know and have learned to appreciate-has never pressed in this House any request that wajs not fair and reasonable. What can you lose in granting it? Nothing. What can you gain? The development in the French sections of this country of a spirit of friendship and bonne entente the like of which you have never experienced before.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, I have
listened to the discussion with the greatest of interest, and speaking for myself, I must say that in the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) there is sufficient I think to warrant me in saying that it is deserving of the fullest consideration on the part of the Government, and in that view I would ask that this section be allowed to stand. I must make myself clear, however, I would not approve the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon), but I think it worth while that we should have further consideration of a question which divides public opinion as this certainly does. The suggestion that perhaps the Chief Electoral Officer might determine whether the proclamation should be issued in French, or in English, or in both languages, is one that should be fully considered before the matter is finally decided. I express no opinion on the matter in the meantime; I merely ask that it be allowed to stand until I have had a chance to discuss it with my colleagues.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I do not press my
amendment as worded; my ambition is that the right of having proclamations issued in both languages should be accepted as a matter of expediency and nothing else. As my hon. friend (Mr. Beland) has stated, I do not ask that the proclamation should be issued in French in every constituency, even in New Brunswick; in British Columbia we do not expect it. The amendment could be so worded that it would not oper-1171
ate in constituencies where the population is entirely English-speaking. It is only in French constituencies or in mixed constituencies that I would like to have this amendment put in force. With this explanation I hope that my hon. friend who has charge of this Bill will be able to bring down an amendment which will be acceptable to us.


Georges Henri Boivin: Does the hon. member for Gloucester desire to withdraw his amendment?


Onésiphore Turgeon: No, it stands.


Georges Henri Boivin: The Acting Solicitor General moves that clause 37 and the proposed amendment thereto be postponed for further consideration. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: - As it is just about midnight, I think we might report progress. We have made good progress so far.


Hugh Guthrie: I would like to call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that tomorrow is the 30th of April, and that this is a long Bill and will take a lot of consistent, steady work before it is disposed of. I think if we put in another couple of hours' work to-night it is not too much to expect. We have had practically no late sittings during this session. I do not know what the feeling of the other members is, but I would like to get through the business of the session sometime, and particularly to get through this Bill. To ask the House to sit occasionally until two o'clock in the morning is not unreasonable. In past years it was a common thing to sit until one or two o'clock every morning.


Mr. PARENT:: Some of us were younger then.


Hugh Guthrie: All of us.


Mr. BOYGE:: I agree with the minister and think we should sit until two o'clock. The Opposition has done nothing but try to delay business the whole evening.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman apparently will not have to attend a committee meeting to-morrow morning. I have to attend a committee on a very important Bill, the Indian Bill; it is my duty to be there; and I want to be here for the discussion on this Bill also. It is unfair to ask me to sit here after twelve o'clock when I have to attend a com-

mittee of this House to-morrow morning at ten o'clock.


Mr. BOYCE:: Why don't you go home and go to bed?


Ernest Lapointe: If I were doing as little as the hon. gentleman I could go home and remain home until the end of the session, and the business of the country would proceed just as well.


Jacques Bureau: We had better come to an understanding on this question and not fill the air with fire. My hon. friend fom Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is absolutely right; to-morrow morning we have to attend important committee meetings. I realize that the ministers have to attend at their offices, but others who help to do the work of this House, like my hon. friend from Quebec East, have also to attend meetings of special committees, and we cannot do so if we sit here until two o'clock in the morning. The hon. member for Car-leton (Mr. Boyce) may be quite willing to sit into the early hours of the morning when he attends to the business of the House so seldom, but he cannot measure others by his own yardstick. I think midnight is a fair hour, but if we are called upon to sit beyond midnight we will sit.


Hugh Guthrie: In our younger days we used to think midnight was too early to rise.


Jacques Bureau: We are older now.


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose in face of the statement of my hon. friend from Three Rivers II may take it for granted that we are not going to make any further progress.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sure you will not.


Hugh Guthrie: 1 do think we will have to sit a little later during the balance of the session.


Jacques Bureau: Then do it at the beginning of the week when we are not "all in."


Hugh Guthrie: The session has been one of very early adjournments-perhaps it has made a record in that respect. In my long experience in this House I have known no other session when we have risen so early. But while I see the situation to-night, I do think that next week when we take up this amendment we ought to sit a little steadier and later if we hope to reach a final determination within a treasonable time. I agree that reasonable opportunity should be given for discussion, and personally I would like to sit a couple

of hours more to-night. However, under the circumstances, as apparently we will not advance matters any further, I move that the committee do now rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. 1
must remind the hon. members that there is a well known rule of the House which provides that when the House adjourns the members must keep their seats until the Speaker has left the Chair. It also provides that when the Speaker is putting a question no hon. member shall walk out of or across the House or make any noise or disturbance. Let me assure hon. gentlemen that these remarks are not dictated by any desire on the part of the Speaker to exalt his own position hut by an earnest desire to maintain the traditional dignity and decorum olf the House of Commons.


Mr. ROWELL:: Hear, hear.


An hon. MEMBER:: The member for
Carleton (iMr. Boyce) is leaving the Chamber.


George Boyce: Out of respect to the Speaker I will take my seat, hut not out of respect to hon. gentlemen opposite.
On motion of Sir Henry Drayton the House adjourned at twelve o'clock (midnight).
Friday, April 30, 1920.